Re: [PATCH 1/2][RESEND] x86/pci/amd: Restore early_fill_mp_bus_to_node

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Andreas Herrmann
> <andreas.herrmann3@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 09:44:16AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Andreas Herrmann
>>> <andreas.herrmann3@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:35:05AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Andreas Herrmann
>>> >> <andreas.herrmann3@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 11:33:17AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> >> >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Andreas Herrmann
>>> >> >> <andreas.herrmann3@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Once upon a time this function was overloaded with quirky stuff to fix
>>> >> >> > resource detection on systems w/ _CRS defects (seems that some Sun and
>>> >> >> > HP systems were affected).
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > See commit 30a18d6c3f1e774de656ebd8ff219d53e2ba4029
>>> >> >> > (x86: multi pci root bus with different io resource range, on 64-bit)
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Restore the old function and thus decouple it from the quirk that is
>>> >> >> > CPU family specific (e.g. it won't work on AMD family 15h CPUs). BTW,
>>> >> >> > I assume that the _CRS stuff is working on current systems.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > This is required to properly initilize the numa_node information of
>>> >> >> > existing PCI busses and associated devices.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I applied some of Yinghai's patches that also touch this area.  Can
>>> >> >> you refresh these so they apply on top of my "next" branch
>>> >> >> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git next)?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Arrgh, will adapt my patch and resend it (asap).
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Can you also be more specific about what these patches fix?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> My understanding is that amd_bus.c (1) sets NUMA info with
>>> >> >> set_mp_bus_to_node() and (2) figures out MMIO and I/O port apertures,
>>> >> >> which are only used when blind probing and when ignoring _CRS.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> It seems like the main change in this patch is that we skip (2)
>>> >> >> completely when family >= 0x11, and I don't understand what that could
>>> >> >> fix.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The patch restores a very old function that was used to detect the
>>> >> > nearest node for a PCI bus, so yes it's used to do (1). IMHO this
>>> >> > function was totally screwed up with Yinghai's code to do (2). It
>>> >> > seems that Sun has (had?) some systems where (2) was req'd. I don't
>>> >> > care about this part. But I'd like to do (1) on all AMD CPU NUMA
>>> >> > systems.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for the explanation.  But I'm afraid I'm still confused.
>>> >>
>>> >> First, it sounds like you're trying to change the way we do part (1),
>>> >> i.e., the set_mp_bus_to_node() calls, but I think the effect of your
>>> >> patch is to stop doing part (2) in some cases.
>>> >>
>>> >> Second, I am pretty sure that the current early_fill_mp_bus_info()
>>> >> (before your patch) does the exact same set_mp_bus_to_node() calls as
>>> >> your early_fill_mp_bus_to_node() does.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I want to do (1) on all AMD CPUs that might be used in NUMA systems.
>>> >
>>> > What's done for (2) is very specific to certain AMD CPU families --
>>> > some of the register accesses are wrong/incomplete for newer AMD
>>> > CPUs. Furhtermore _CRS should provide the required info. I really
>>> > don't want to extend all the quirky stuff in (2) for future AMD CPUs.
>>>
>>> I'm all in favor of limiting part (2) to older AMD CPUs.  I certainly
>>> don't want to maintain it for future CPUs.
>>>
>>> >> Finally, on all systems with ACPI, the set_mp_bus_to_node() call in
>>> >> pci_acpi_scan_root() should be doing what you need.  In fact, that
>>> >> call happens later, so it should be overwriting the information filled
>>> >> in by amd_bus.c.  If there's something wrong in this ACPI path, the
>>> >> most likely cause is a BIOS defect, such as  a missing _PXM method on
>>> >> the PNP0A03/0A08 host bridge device.
>>> >
>>> > Good point. I'll check what's wrong in this ACPI path.
>>>
>>> I hope you find something, especially if it's a bug in the Linux code
>>> that interprets  the NUMA info.  Then we could fix that and limit both
>>> parts to older CPUs.
>>
>> Simply, there is no _PXM object for the host bridge devices. At least
>> on the systems that I checked.
>>
>> I'll try to find out whether this is sort of "common BIOS practice" on
>> AMD boxes and how to avoid that in the future.
>
> _PXM can also be attached to any parent of the host bridge, since
> devices default to the domain of their parents.  It looks like
> acpi_get_pxm() should already handle that correctly, so I assume these
> systems just don't have any _PXM anywhere in the path between the host
> bridge and the root.
>
> If these are just old machines with BIOS bugs, I guess I'm OK with
> doing a Linux fix along the lines of your patch.  What I don't like is
> just silently covering up BIOS bugs in new platforms by keeping this
> CPU-specific code when we have a perfectly good generic mechanism for
> doing proximity.  That's a maintenance problem, as you pointed out for
> the aperture code (part (2)).

I think we still need to do something here, don't we?

I'm expecting we'll end up with at least two patches: one to keep us
from looking at MSRs on future CPUs where they might be different from
current CPUs, and another to work around BIOS defects (missing _PXM
methods) on some systems.  I'm guessing the second should be somehow
limited to certain CPU families and possibly BIOS dates.

Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/