Hi Jan,
On 2022/10/9 15:25, Wei Chen wrote:
Hi Jan,
>
Even more so an answer to my question would be nice: You'll then have
CONFIG_HAS_NUMA_NODE_FWID=y even on Arm (using PXM as mandated by ACPI
when in ACPI mode). But then what's the FWID for DT? I know it was me
to suggest this build time distinction, but I'm afraid I wasn't doing
much good with that (and I'm sorry).
How about introducing a flag for selected NUMA implementation to
set it in runtime?
For example:
bool numa_has_fw_nodeid;
ACPI NUMA will set this flag to 1, but 0 for DT NUMA.
That's an option alongside going back to what you had in an earlier
version. Another would be (name subject to improvement)
const char *__ro_after_init numa_fw_nid_name;
When I was dealing with this comment, I found that I was still a little
unclear:
When we were introducing "CONFIG_HAS_NUMA_NODE_FWID", we wanted to
eliminate the redundant code of:
if ( fwid_name not equal to "node" )
printk(KERN_INFO "NUMA: Node %u %s %u [%"PRIpaddr"%"PRIpaddr"]%s\n",
node, fwid_name , arch_nid, start, end - 1,
hotplug ? " (hotplug)" : "");
else
printk(KERN_INFO "NUMA: Node %u [%"PRIpaddr", %"PRIpaddr"]%s\n",
node, start, end - 1, hotplug ? " (hotplug)" : "");
But when I am working with numa_fw_nid_name, I find it's still not
easy to reduce above redundant code. For example:
"NUMA: Node %u %s %u
When numa_fw_nid_name = NULL, we can print "" for %s, but can't reduce
the second %u.
So can we split this message into 3 lines like:
printk(KERN_INFO "NUMA: Node %u"...);
if (numa_fw_nid_name)
printk(KERN_INFO " %s %u"...);
printk(KERN_INFO "[%"PRIpaddr"%"PRIpaddr"]%s\n"...);
Or another option, we can force each NUMA implementation to assign a
string for numa_fw_nid_name. For example, in DT NUMA, we can assign
numa_fw_nid_name="SOCKET".
Cheers,
Wei Chen
which for ACPI would be set to "PXM" (eliminating the need to pass
it to certain functions, albeit the fw_nid will continue to need to
be passed anyway). I guess I'm not really certain which of this and
your earlier approach I prefer; the boolean you suggest above looks
less desirable to me, though.
Ok, I will follow your suggestion.
Cheers,
Wei Chen
Jan
