Re: [PATCHv6 07/10] acpi/hmat: Register processor domain to its memory

[Dan Williams]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:17 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:14 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:11 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/20/19 2:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/hmat/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/hmat/Kconfig
> > > >> index c9637e2e7514..08e972ead159 100644
> > > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/hmat/Kconfig
> > > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/hmat/Kconfig
> > > >> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> > > >>  config ACPI_HMAT
> > > >>         bool "ACPI Heterogeneous Memory Attribute Table Support"
> > > >>         depends on ACPI_NUMA
> > > >> +       select HMEM_REPORTING
> > > > If you want to do this here, I'm not sure that defining HMEM_REPORTING
> > > > as a user-selectable option is a good idea.  In particular, I don't
> > > > really think that setting ACPI_HMAT without it makes a lot of sense.
> > > > Apart from this, the patch looks reasonable to me.
> > >
> > > I guess the question is whether we would want to allow folks to consume
> > > the HMAT inside the kernel while not reporting it out via
> > > HMEM_REPORTING.  We have some in-kernel users of the HMAT lined up like
> > > mitigations for memory-side caches.
> > >
> > > It's certainly possible that folks would want to consume those
> > > mitigations without anything in sysfs.  They might not even want or need
> > > NUMA support itself, for instance.
> > >
> > > So, what should we do?
> > >
> > > config HMEM_REPORTING
> > >         bool # no user-visible prompt
> > >         default y if ACPI_HMAT
> > >
> > > So folks can override in their .config, but they don't see a prompt?
> >
> > I would add an "&& ACPI_NUMA" to that default as well.
>
> But ACPI_HMAT depends on ACPI_NUMA already, or am I missing anything?

Oh, my mistake, sorry.