On 16.09.2014 [14:42:20 -0500], Nathan Fontenot wrote:
>
>
> On 09/09/2014 03:09 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > We have hit a few customer issues with the topology update code (VPHN
> > and PRRN). It would be nice to be able to debug the notifications coming
> > from the hypervisor in both cases to the LPAR, as well as to disable
> > reacting to the notifications, to narrow down the source of the
> > problems. Add a basic level of such functionality, similar to the numa=
> > command-line parameter.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <n...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > This is pretty rough, but has been useful in the field already. I'm not
> > sure if more information would be useful than this basic amount.
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> > b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> > index 5ae8608ca9f5..6e3b9e3a2ab4 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> > @@ -3370,6 +3370,13 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be
> > entirely omitted.
> > e.g. base its process migration decisions on it.
> > Default is on.
> >
> > + topology_updates= [KNL, PPC, NUMA]
> > + Format: {off | debug}
> > + Specify if the kernel should ignore (off) or
> > + emit more information (debug) when the
> > + hypervisor sends NUMA topology updates to an
> > + LPAR.
> > +
> > tp720= [HW,PS2]
> >
> > tpm_suspend_pcr=[HW,TPM]
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > index d7737a542fd7..72c5ad313cbe 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > @@ -1160,6 +1160,28 @@ static int __init early_numa(char *p)
> > }
> > early_param("numa", early_numa);
> >
> > +static int topology_updates_enabled = 1;
> > +static int topology_updates_debug = 0;
> > +
> > +static int __init early_topology_updates(char *p)
> > +{
> > + if (!p)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if (strstr(p, "off")) {
> > + printk(KERN_INFO "Disabling topology updates\n");
> > + topology_updates_enabled = 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (strstr(p, "debug")) {
> > + printk(KERN_INFO "Enabling topology updates debug\n");
> > + topology_updates_debug = 1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +early_param("topology_updates", early_topology_updates);
> > +
> > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> > /*
> > * Find the node associated with a hot added memory section for
> > @@ -1546,6 +1568,9 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
> > struct device *dev;
> > int weight, new_nid, i = 0;
> >
> > + if (!topology_updates_enabled)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > weight = cpumask_weight(&cpu_associativity_changes_mask);
> > if (!weight)
> > return 0;
> > @@ -1610,6 +1635,25 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
> > *
> > * And for the similar reason, we will skip all the following updating.
> > */
> > +
> > + if (topology_updates_debug) {
> > + char *buf = kmalloc_array(NR_CPUS*5, sizeof(char), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + cpumask_scnprintf(buf, NR_CPUS*5, &updated_cpus);
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "Topology update for the following CPUs:\n");
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG " %s\n", buf);
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) = %u\n",
> > + cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus));
> > +
> > + if (cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) {
> > + for (ud = &updates[0]; ud; ud = ud->next) {
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpu %d moving from node %d "
> > + "to %d\n", ud->cpu,
> > + ud->old_nid, ud->new_nid);
> > + }
> > + }
> > + kfree(buf);
> > + }
> > +
> > if (!cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus))
> > goto out;
> >
> > @@ -1807,8 +1851,10 @@ static const struct file_operations topology_ops = {
> >
> > static int topology_update_init(void)
> > {
> > - start_topology_update();
> > - proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL, &topology_ops);
> > + if (topology_updates_enabled) {
> > + start_topology_update();
> > + proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL,
> > &topology_ops);
> > + }
> >
>
> Is there any reason you would want to enable topology updates at some
> later point?
>
> If so you could still create the /proc file and update it to set
> topology_updates_enabled appropriately in start_topology_update()
> and stop_topology_update().
Oh, that's a good point! I'll adjust the patch accordingly (disable at
boot, leave the run-time twiddle).
-Nish
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
