On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 14:54:36 +
Ankit Agrawal wrote:
> > With an ACPI spec clarification agreed then I'm fine with
> > using this for all the cases that have come up in this thread.
> > Or a good argument that this is valid in under existing ACPI spec.
>
> Hi Jonathan
>
> I looked at the
>> Ok. I'd failed to register that the bare metal code was doing this though
>> with hindsight I guess that is obvious. Though without more info or
>> a bare metal example being given its also possible the BIOS was doing
>> enumeration etc (like CXL does for all < 2.0 devices) and hence was
>>
> With an ACPI spec clarification agreed then I'm fine with
> using this for all the cases that have come up in this thread.
> Or a good argument that this is valid in under existing ACPI spec.
Hi Jonathan
I looked at the Section 5.2.16 in ACPI spec doc, but could not see
any mention of whether
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:00:43 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 03:53:51PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:03:28 -0300
> > Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 02:54:40PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > >
> > > >
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 03:53:51PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:03:28 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 02:54:40PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >
> > > Possible the ASWG folk would say this is fine and I'm reading too much
> > > into
>
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:03:28 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 02:54:40PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
> > Possible the ASWG folk would say this is fine and I'm reading too much into
> > the spec, but I'd definitely suggest asking them via the appropriate path,
> > or
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 02:54:40PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Possible the ASWG folk would say this is fine and I'm reading too much into
> the spec, but I'd definitely suggest asking them via the appropriate path,
> or throwing in a code first proposal for a comment on this special case
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 05:49:46 +
Ankit Agrawal wrote:
> Hi Jonathan
Hi Ankit,
>
> > > +if (pcidev->pdev.has_coherent_memory) {
> > > +uint64_t start_node = object_property_get_uint(obj,
> > > + "dev_mem_pxm_start", _abort);
> > > +
Hi Jonathan
> > +if (pcidev->pdev.has_coherent_memory) {
> > +uint64_t start_node = object_property_get_uint(obj,
> > + "dev_mem_pxm_start", _abort);
> > +uint64_t node_count = object_property_get_uint(obj,
> > +
On 15.09.23 16:52, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:45:58 -0700
wrote:
From: Ankit Agrawal
During bootup, Linux kernel parse the ACPI SRAT to determine the PXM ids.
This allows for the creation of NUMA nodes for each unique id.
Insert a series of the unique PXM ids in the VM
On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:45:58 -0700
wrote:
> From: Ankit Agrawal
>
> During bootup, Linux kernel parse the ACPI SRAT to determine the PXM ids.
> This allows for the creation of NUMA nodes for each unique id.
>
> Insert a series of the unique PXM ids in the VM SRAT ACPI table. The
> range of
On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:45:58 -0700
wrote:
> From: Ankit Agrawal
>
> During bootup, Linux kernel parse the ACPI SRAT to determine the PXM ids.
> This allows for the creation of NUMA nodes for each unique id.
>
> Insert a series of the unique PXM ids in the VM SRAT ACPI table. The
> range of
From: Ankit Agrawal
During bootup, Linux kernel parse the ACPI SRAT to determine the PXM ids.
This allows for the creation of NUMA nodes for each unique id.
Insert a series of the unique PXM ids in the VM SRAT ACPI table. The
range of nodes can be determined from the "dev_mem_pxm_start" and
13 matches
Mail list logo
