Re: [PATCH] PCI, X86: busnum/node boot command line for pci dev node setting.
From: Bjorn Helgaas
Date: Mon Jun 25 2012 - 16:59:49 EST
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Some intel new sandybridge or newer two sockets system do support support numa
> for pci devices. But BIOS does not provide _PXM under those root bus in DSDT.
>
> Add boot command line, so user could have chance to input node info before
> BIOS guys figure out to add _PXM.
>
> Fold fix from Ulrich to use ";" instead of ",".
> | The problem is the pci= parameter
> | handling uses ',' to separate parameters and therefore the second PCI
> | root information, separated by a comma, is interpreted as a new pci=
> | parameter.
>
> -v3: According to Bjorn and Ingo, change to use "user input first" policy
> so it could cover wrong _PXM case.
> -v4: Folded change from Ulrich to record pointer of busnum_node string.
>
> Reported-by: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@xxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 5 +++++
> arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h | 3 +++
> arch/x86/pci/acpi.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
> arch/x86/pci/common.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ linux-2.6/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -2068,6 +2068,11 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes
> hardware access methods are allowed. Use this
> if you experience crashes upon bootup and you
> suspect they are caused by the BIOS.
> + busnum_node= [X86] Set node for root bus.
> + Format:
> + <bus>:<node>[;...]
> + Specifies node for bus, will override bios _PXM
> + or probed value from hostbridge.
I liked the previous argument format that included "pci". Now we're
assuming the only bus type important enough to care about NUMA
information is PCI.
This should also work on ia64, which also uses ACPI. For that matter,
it'd be nice if it worked on *any* NUMA architecture, though I don't
see any PCI NUMA support at all for anything but x86 and ia64.
> conf1 [X86] Force use of PCI Configuration
> Mechanism 1.
> conf2 [X86] Force use of PCI Configuration
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/pci/common.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/pci/common.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/pci/common.c
> @@ -494,6 +494,39 @@ int __init pcibios_init(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static const char *busnum_node_param;
> +
> +static void remember_busnum_node(const char *str)
> +{
> + busnum_node_param = str;
Can you convince me this is safe? pci_setup() is an early_param, so
it looks to me like we might be saving a pointer to initdata in this
call path:
setup_arch
parse_early_param
strlcpy(tmp_cmdline, boot_command_line)
parse_early_options(__initdata tmp_cmdline)
parse_args
do_early_param
...
pci_setup (early_param)
pcibios_setup
remember_busnum_node
And then we use that saved pointer to parse the string at host bridge
add-time, which might be after initdata has been freed.
> +}
> +
> +int get_user_busnum_node(int busnum)
> +{
> + int bus, node, count;
> + const char *p = busnum_node_param;
> +
> + if (!p)
> + return -1;
> +
> + while (*p) {
> + count = 0;
> + if (sscanf(p, "%x:%x%n", &bus, &node, &count) != 2) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "PCI: Can't parse busnum_node input: %s\n",
> + p);
> + break;
> + }
> + if (bus == busnum)
> + return node;
> + p += count;
> + if (*p != ';')
> + break;
> + p++;
> + }
> +
> + return -1;
> +}
> +
> char * __devinit pcibios_setup(char *str)
> {
> if (!strcmp(str, "off")) {
> @@ -579,6 +612,9 @@ char * __devinit pcibios_setup(char *st
> } else if (!strcmp(str, "nocrs")) {
> pci_probe |= PCI_ROOT_NO_CRS;
> return NULL;
> + } else if (!strncmp(str, "busnum_node=", 12)) {
> + remember_busnum_node(str + 12);
> + return NULL;
> } else if (!strcmp(str, "earlydump")) {
> pci_early_dump_regs = 1;
> return NULL;
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
> @@ -46,6 +46,9 @@ enum pci_bf_sort_state {
> pci_dmi_bf,
> };
>
> +/* pci-common.c */
> +int get_user_busnum_node(int busnum);
> +
> /* pci-i386.c */
>
> void pcibios_resource_survey(void);
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> @@ -453,7 +453,7 @@ struct pci_bus * __devinit pci_acpi_scan
> struct pci_sysdata *sd;
> int node;
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
> - int pxm;
> + int pxm = -1;
> #endif
>
> if (domain && !pci_domains_supported) {
> @@ -463,16 +463,20 @@ struct pci_bus * __devinit pci_acpi_scan
> return NULL;
> }
>
> - node = -1;
> + node = get_user_busnum_node(busnum);
> + if (node == -1) {
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
> - pxm = acpi_get_pxm(device->handle);
> - if (pxm >= 0)
> - node = pxm_to_node(pxm);
> - if (node != -1)
> - set_mp_bus_to_node(busnum, node);
> - else
> -#endif
> + pxm = acpi_get_pxm(device->handle);
> + if (pxm >= 0)
> + node = pxm_to_node(pxm);
The code above (everything except the calls to set_mp_bus_to_node()
and get_mp_bus_to_node(), which are x86-specific) should be the same
between x86 and ia64. Can you rationalize them? It'd be better if
they used the same #ifdefs and the same code structure.
> + if (node != -1)
> + set_mp_bus_to_node(busnum, node);
> + else
> + node = get_mp_bus_to_node(busnum);
> +#else
> node = get_mp_bus_to_node(busnum);
I don't understand the set_mp_bus_to_node() and get_mp_bus_to_node()
definitions. There are separate x86_64 and x86_32 definitions, and I
don't know why. The mp_bus_to_node[] table itself is identical and
could be merged. get_mp_bus_to_node(-1) returns -1 on x86_64 but 0 on
x86_32; this difference seems like a bug. Only x86_64 looks at
node_online(node); this difference also seems like a bug.
> +#endif
> + }
>
> if (node != -1 && !node_online(node))
> node = -1;
Maybe this node_online() check is related to the difference in the
get_mp_bus_to_node() definitions?
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/