On 27.09.2015 [23:59:12 +0530], Raghavendra K T wrote:
> Create arrays that maps serial nids and sparse chipids.
>
> Note: My original idea had only two arrays of chipid to nid map. Final
> code is inspired by driver/acpi/numa.c that maps a proximity node with
> a logical node by Takayoshi Kochi <t-ko...@bq.jp.nec.com>, and thus
> uses an additional chipid_map nodemask. The mask helps in first unused
> nid easily by knowing first unset bit in the mask.
>
> No change in functionality.
>
> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index dd2073b..f015cad 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -63,6 +63,11 @@ static int form1_affinity;
> static int distance_ref_points_depth;
> static const __be32 *distance_ref_points;
> static int distance_lookup_table[MAX_NUMNODES][MAX_DISTANCE_REF_POINTS];
> +static nodemask_t chipid_map = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> +static int chipid_to_nid_map[MAX_NUMNODES]
> + = { [0 ... MAX_NUMNODES - 1] = NUMA_NO_NODE };
Hrm, conceptually there are *more* chips than nodes, right? So what
guarantees we won't see > MAX_NUMNODES chips?
> +static int nid_to_chipid_map[MAX_NUMNODES]
> + = { [0 ... MAX_NUMNODES - 1] = NUMA_NO_NODE };
>
> /*
> * Allocate node_to_cpumask_map based on number of available nodes
> @@ -133,6 +138,48 @@ static int __init fake_numa_create_new_node(unsigned
> long end_pfn,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +int chipid_to_nid(int chipid)
> +{
> + if (chipid < 0)
> + return NUMA_NO_NODE;
Do you really want to support these cases? Or should they be
bugs/warnings indicating that you got an unexpected input? Or at least
WARN_ON_ONCE?
> + return chipid_to_nid_map[chipid];
> +}
> +
> +int nid_to_chipid(int nid)
> +{
> + if (nid < 0)
> + return NUMA_NO_NODE;
> + return nid_to_chipid_map[nid];
> +}
> +
> +static void __map_chipid_to_nid(int chipid, int nid)
> +{
> + if (chipid_to_nid_map[chipid] == NUMA_NO_NODE
> + || nid < chipid_to_nid_map[chipid])
> + chipid_to_nid_map[chipid] = nid;
> + if (nid_to_chipid_map[nid] == NUMA_NO_NODE
> + || chipid < nid_to_chipid_map[nid])
> + nid_to_chipid_map[nid] = chipid;
> +}
chip <-> node mapping is a static (physical) concept, right? Should we
emit some debugging if for some reason we get a runtime call to remap
an already mapped chip to a new node?
> +
> +int map_chipid_to_nid(int chipid)
> +{
> + int nid;
> +
> + if (chipid < 0 || chipid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
> + return NUMA_NO_NODE;
> +
> + nid = chipid_to_nid_map[chipid];
> + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> + if (nodes_weight(chipid_map) >= MAX_NUMNODES)
> + return NUMA_NO_NODE;
If you create a KVM guest with a bogus topology, doesn't this just start
losing NUMA information for very high-noded guests?
> + nid = first_unset_node(chipid_map);
> + __map_chipid_to_nid(chipid, nid);
> + node_set(nid, chipid_map);
> + }
> + return nid;
> +}
> +
> int numa_cpu_lookup(int cpu)
> {
> return numa_cpu_lookup_table[cpu];
> @@ -264,7 +311,6 @@ out:
> return chipid;
> }
>
> -
stray change?
> /* Return the nid from associativity */
> static int associativity_to_nid(const __be32 *associativity)
> {
> --
> 1.7.11.7
>
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
