On 8/17/20 4:29 PM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
* Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.ku...@linux.ibm.com> [2020-08-17 16:02:36]:
We use ibm,associativity and ibm,associativity-lookup-arrays to derive the numa
node numbers. These device tree properties are firmware indicated grouping of
resources based on their hierarchy in the platform. These numbers (group id) are
not sequential and hypervisor/firmware can follow different numbering schemes.
For ex: on powernv platforms, we group them in the below order.
* - CCM node ID
* - HW card ID
* - HW module ID
* - Chip ID
* - Core ID
Based on ibm,associativity-reference-points we use one of the above group ids as
Linux NUMA node id. (On PowerNV platform Chip ID is used). This results
in Linux reporting non-linear NUMA node id and which also results in Linux
reporting empty node 0 NUMA nodes.
This can be resolved by mapping the firmware provided group id to a logical
Linux
NUMA id. In this patch, we do this only for pseries platforms considering the
firmware group id is a virtualized entity and users would not have drawn any
conclusion based on the Linux Numa Node id.
On PowerNV platform since we have historically mapped Chip ID as Linux NUMA node
id, we keep the existing Linux NUMA node id numbering.
I still dont understand how you are going to handle numa distances.
With your patch, have you tried dlpar add/remove on a sparsely noded machine?
We follow the same steps when fetching distance information. Instead of
using affinity domain id, we now use the mapped node id. The relevant
hunk in the patch is
+ nid = affinity_domain_to_nid(&domain);
if (nid > 0 &&
- of_read_number(associativity, 1) >= distance_ref_points_depth) {
+ of_read_number(associativity, 1) >= distance_ref_points_depth) {
/*
* Skip the length field and send start of associativity array
*/
I haven't tried dlpar add/remove. I don't have a setup to try that. Do
you see a problem there?
-aneesh
