Re: [PATCH V6 0/7] ACPI: Support Generic Initiator proximity domains

[Brice Goglin]

Le 18/12/2019 Ã 15:50, Jonathan Cameron a ÃcritÂ:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:32:06 +0100
> Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Le 16/12/2019 Ã 16:38, Jonathan Cameron a ÃcritÂ:
>>> Introduces a new type of NUMA node for cases where we want to represent
>>> the access characteristics of a non CPU initiator of memory requests,
>>> as these differ from all those for existing nodes containing CPUs and/or
>>> memory.
>>>
>>> These Generic Initiators are presented by the node access0 class in
>>> sysfs in the same way as a CPU.   It seems likely that there will be
>>> usecases in which the best 'CPU' is desired and Generic Initiators
>>> should be ignored.  The final few patches in this series introduced
>>> access1 which is a new performance class in the sysfs node description
>>> which presents only CPU to memory relationships.  Test cases for this
>>> are described below.  
>>
>> Hello Jonathan
>>
>> If I want to test this with a fake GI, what are the minimal set of
>> changes I should put in my ACPI tables? Can I just specify a dummy GI in
>> SRAT? What handle should I use there?
> Exactly that for a dummy GI.  Also extend HMAT and SLIT for the extra
> proximity domain / initiator.


I couldn't get this to work (your patches on top of 5.5-rc2). I added
the GI in SRAT, and extended HMAT and SLIT accordingly.

I don't know if that's expected but I get an additional node in sysfs,
with 0kB memory.

However the HMAT table gets ignored because find_mem_target() fails in
hmat_parse_proximity_domain(). The target should have been allocated in
alloc_memory_target() which is called in srat_parse_mem_affinity(), but
it seems to me that this function isn't called for GI nodes. Or should
SRAT also contain a normal Memory node with same PM as the GI?

Brice