[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] hw/acpi-build: build SRAT memory affinit
From: |
Haozhong Zhang |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] hw/acpi-build: build SRAT memory affinity structures for DIMM devices |
Date: |
Thu, 1 Mar 2018 21:12:37 +0800 |
User-agent: |
NeoMutt/20171027 |
On 03/01/18 14:01 +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 19:56:51 +0800
> Haozhong Zhang <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > On 03/01/18 11:42 +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:02:58 +0800
> > > Haozhong Zhang <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ACPI 6.2A Table 5-129 "SPA Range Structure" requires the proximity
> > > > domain of a NVDIMM SPA range must match with corresponding entry in
> > > > SRAT table.
> > > >
> > > > The address ranges of vNVDIMM in QEMU are allocated from the
> > > > hot-pluggable address space, which is entirely covered by one SRAT
> > > > memory affinity structure. However, users can set the vNVDIMM
> > > > proximity domain in NFIT SPA range structure by the 'node' property of
> > > > '-device nvdimm' to a value different than the one in the above SRAT
> > > > memory affinity structure.
> > > >
> > > > In order to solve such proximity domain mismatch, this patch builds
> > > > one SRAT memory affinity structure for each static-plugged DIMM device,
> > > >
> > > s/static-plugged/present at boot/
> > > since after hotplug and following reset SRAT will be recreated
> > > and include hotplugged DIMMs as well.
> >
> > Ah yes, I'll fix the message in the next version.
> >
> > >
> > > > including both PC-DIMM and NVDIMM, with the proximity domain specified
> > > > in '-device pc-dimm' or '-device nvdimm'.
> > > >
> > > > The remaining hot-pluggable address space is covered by one or multiple
> > > > SRAT memory affinity structures with the proximity domain of the last
> > > > node as before.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Haozhong Zhang <address@hidden>
> > > > ---
> > > > hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 50
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > > hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > > include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > > > 3 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> > > > index deb440f286..a88de06d8f 100644
> > > > --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> > > > +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> > > > @@ -2323,6 +2323,49 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker
> > > > *linker, GArray *tcpalog)
> > > > #define HOLE_640K_START (640 * 1024)
> > > > #define HOLE_640K_END (1024 * 1024)
> > > >
> > > > +static void build_srat_hotpluggable_memory(GArray *table_data,
> > > > uint64_t base,
> > > > + uint64_t len, int
> > > > default_node)
> > > > +{
> > > > + GSList *dimms = pc_dimm_get_device_list();
> > > > + GSList *ent = dimms;
> > > > + PCDIMMDevice *dev;
> > > > + Object *obj;
> > > > + uint64_t end = base + len, addr, size;
> > > > + int node;
> > > > + AcpiSratMemoryAffinity *numamem;
> > > > +
> > > > + while (base < end) {
> > > It's just matter of taste but wouldn't 'for' loop be better here?
> > > One can see start, end and next step from the begging.
> >
> > will switch to a for loop
> >
> > >
> > > > + numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!ent) {
> > > > + build_srat_memory(numamem, base, end - base, default_node,
> > > > + MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE |
> > > > MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
> > > > + break;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + dev = PC_DIMM(ent->data);
> > > > + obj = OBJECT(dev);
> > > > + addr = object_property_get_uint(obj, PC_DIMM_ADDR_PROP, NULL);
> > > > + size = object_property_get_uint(obj, PC_DIMM_SIZE_PROP, NULL);
> > > > + node = object_property_get_uint(obj, PC_DIMM_NODE_PROP, NULL);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (base < addr) {
> > > > + build_srat_memory(numamem, base, addr - base, default_node,
> > > > + MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE |
> > > > MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
> > > > + numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
> > > > + }
> > > > + build_srat_memory(numamem, addr, size, node,
> > > > + MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE |
> > > > MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED |
> > > Is NVDIMM hotplug supported in QEMU?
> > > If not we might need make MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE conditional too.
> >
> > Yes, it's supported.
> >
> > >
> > > > + (object_dynamic_cast(obj, TYPE_NVDIMM) ?
> > > > + MEM_AFFINITY_NON_VOLATILE : 0));
> > > it might be cleaner without inline flags duplication
> > >
> > > flags = MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED;
> > > ...
> > > if (!ent) {
> > > flags |= MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE
> > > }
> > > ...
> > > if (PCDIMMDeviceInfo::hotpluggable) { // see ***
> > > flags |= MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE
> > > }
> > > ...
> > > if (object_dynamic_cast(obj, TYPE_NVDIMM))
> > > flags |= MEM_AFFINITY_NON_VOLATILE
> > > }
> >
> > I'm fine for such changes, except ***
> >
> > [..]
> > > > diff --git a/hw/mem/pc-dimm.c b/hw/mem/pc-dimm.c
> > > > index 6e74b61cb6..9fd901e87a 100644
> > > > --- a/hw/mem/pc-dimm.c
> > > > +++ b/hw/mem/pc-dimm.c
> > > > @@ -276,6 +276,14 @@ static int pc_dimm_built_list(Object *obj, void
> > > > *opaque)
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +GSList *pc_dimm_get_device_list(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + GSList *list = NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + object_child_foreach(qdev_get_machine(), pc_dimm_built_list,
> > > > &list);
> > > > + return list;
> > > > +}
> > > (***)
> > > see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-ppc/2018-02/msg00271.html
> > > You could do that in separate patch, so that it won't matter
> > > whose patch got merged first and it won't affect the rest of patches.
> >
> > Sure, I can separate this part, but I would still like to use a list
> > of PCDIMMDevice rather than a list of MemoryDeviceInfo. The latter
> > would need to be extended to include NVDIMM information (e.g., adding
> > a NVDIMMDeviceInfo to the union).
> You don't have to add NVDIMMDeviceInfo until there would be
> need to expose NVDIMM specific information.
Well, I need to know whether a memory device is NVDIMM in order to
decide whether the non-volatile flag is need in SRAT.
>
> qmp_pc_dimm_device_list() API is sufficient in this case
> (modulo missing sorting).
sorting is not a big issue and can be easily added by using
pc_dimm_built_list in qmp_pc_dimm_device_list().
Haozhong
>
> Suggestion has been made to keep number of public APIs that do
> almost the same at minimum.