On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 09:38:35AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote: > On 2022/6/15 05:12, Steve Wahl wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 12:01:45PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:45:35AM -0500, Steve Wahl wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:21:29AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote: > > > > > On 2022/6/14 09:54, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 6:51 PM Baolu Lu <baolu...@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022/6/14 09:44, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 6:36 PM Baolu > > > > > > > > Lu<baolu...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2022/6/14 04:57, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 10:13:09AM -0500, Steve Wahl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > To support up to 64 sockets with 10 DMAR units each > > > > > > > > > > > (640), make the > > > > > > > > > > > value of DMAR_UNITS_SUPPORTED adjustable by a config > > > > > > > > > > > variable, > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_DMAR_UNITS_SUPPORTED, and make it's default 1024 > > > > > > > > > > > when MAXSMP is > > > > > > > > > > > set. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the available hardware exceeds DMAR_UNITS_SUPPORTED > > > > > > > > > > > (previously set > > > > > > > > > > > to MAX_IO_APICS, or 128), it causes these messages: > > > > > > > > > > > "DMAR: Failed to > > > > > > > > > > > allocate seq_id", "DMAR: Parse DMAR table failure.", and > > > > > > > > > > > "x2apic: IRQ > > > > > > > > > > > remapping doesn't support X2APIC mode x2apic disabled"; > > > > > > > > > > > and the system > > > > > > > > > > > fails to boot properly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Steve Wahl<steve.w...@hpe.com> > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that we could not find a reason for connecting > > > > > > > > > > > DMAR_UNITS_SUPPORTED to MAX_IO_APICS as was done > > > > > > > > > > > previously. Perhaps > > > > > > > > > > > it seemed like the two would continue to match on earlier > > > > > > > > > > > processors. > > > > > > > > > > > There doesn't appear to be kernel code that assumes that > > > > > > > > > > > the value of > > > > > > > > > > > one is related to the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: Make this value a config option, rather than a fixed > > > > > > > > > > > constant. The default > > > > > > > > > > > values should match previous configuration except in the > > > > > > > > > > > MAXSMP case. Keeping the > > > > > > > > > > > value at a power of two was requested by Kevin Tian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/iommu/intel/Kconfig | 6 ++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > include/linux/dmar.h | 6 +----- > > > > > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/Kconfig > > > > > > > > > > > b/drivers/iommu/intel/Kconfig > > > > > > > > > > > index 247d0f2d5fdf..fdbda77ac21e 100644 > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/Kconfig > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/Kconfig > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -9,6 +9,12 @@ config DMAR_PERF > > > > > > > > > > > config DMAR_DEBUG > > > > > > > > > > > bool > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +config DMAR_UNITS_SUPPORTED > > > > > > > > > > > + int "Number of DMA Remapping Units supported" > > > > > > > > > > Also, should there be a "depends on (X86 || IA64)" here? > > > > > > > > > Do you have any compilation errors or warnings? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > baolu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is probably harmless since it doesn't get used > > > > > > > > elsewhere, > > > > > > > > but our tooling was complaining to me because > > > > > > > > DMAR_UNITS_SUPPORTED was > > > > > > > > being autogenerated into the configs for the non-x86 > > > > > > > > architectures we > > > > > > > > build (aarch64, s390x, ppcle64). > > > > > > > > We have files corresponding to the config options that it looks > > > > > > > > at, > > > > > > > > and I had one for x86 and not the others so it noticed the > > > > > > > > discrepancy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So with "depends on (X86 || IA64)", that tool doesn't complain > > > > > > > anymore, > > > > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > baolu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, with the depends it no longer happens. > > > > > > > > > > The dmar code only exists on X86 and IA64 arch's. Adding this > > > > > depending > > > > > makes sense to me. I will add it if no objections. > > > > > > > > I think that works after Baolu's patchset that makes intel-iommu.h > > > > private. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have worked before that. > > > > > > > > No objections. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I think applying it with the depends prior to Baolu's change would > > > still run into the issue from the KTR report if someone compiled without > > > INTEL_IOMMU enabled. > > > > > > This was dealing with being able to do something like: > > > > > > make allmodconfig ARCH=arm64 ; grep DMAR_UNITS .config > > > > > > and finding CONFIG_DMAR_UNITS_SUPPORTED=64. > > > > > > Thinking some more though, instead of the depends being on the arch > > > would depending on DMAR_TABLE or INTEL_IOMMU be more appropriate? > > > > At least in my limited exploration, depending on INTEL_IOMMU yields > > compile errors, but depending upon DMAR_TABLE appears to work fine. > > DMAR_TABLE is used beyond INTEL_IOMMU, so depending on DMAR_TABLE seems > better. > > Steve, do you mind posting a v3 with this fixed?
I can do that. Expect it shortly. --> Steve -- Steve Wahl, Hewlett Packard Enterprise _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
