Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 1/6] numa: Move numa implementation to common code

From: Atish Patra
Date: Fri Aug 21 2020 - 17:58:45 EST

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:20 PM Anshuman Khandual
<anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/20/2020 12:48 AM, Atish Patra wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:19 PM Anshuman Khandual
> > <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/15/2020 03:17 AM, Atish Patra wrote:
> >>> ARM64 numa implementation is generic enough that RISC-V can reuse that
> >>> implementation with very minor cosmetic changes. This will help both
> >>> ARM64 and RISC-V in terms of maintanace and feature improvement
> >>>
> >>> Move the numa implementation code to common directory so that both ISAs
> >>> can reuse this. This doesn't introduce any function changes for ARM64.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@xxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
> >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h | 45 +---------------
> >>> arch/arm64/mm/Makefile | 1 -
> >>> drivers/base/Kconfig | 6 +++
> >>> drivers/base/Makefile | 1 +
> >>> .../mm/numa.c => drivers/base/arch_numa.c | 0
> >>> include/asm-generic/numa.h | 51 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 7 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> >>> rename arch/arm64/mm/numa.c => drivers/base/arch_numa.c (100%)
> >>> create mode 100644 include/asm-generic/numa.h
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> >>> index 6d232837cbee..955a0cf75b16 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> >>> @@ -960,6 +960,7 @@ config HOTPLUG_CPU
> >>> # Common NUMA Features
> >>> config NUMA
> >>> bool "NUMA Memory Allocation and Scheduler Support"
> >>> + select GENERIC_ARCH_NUMA
> >>
> >> So this introduces a generic NUMA framework selectable with GENERIC_ARCH_NUMA.
> >>
> >>> select ACPI_NUMA if ACPI
> >>> select OF_NUMA
> >>> help
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h
> >>> index 626ad01e83bf..8c8cf4297cc3 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h
> >>> @@ -3,49 +3,6 @@
> >>> #define __ASM_NUMA_H
> >>>
> >>> #include <asm/topology.h>
> >>> -
> >>> -#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> >>> -
> >>> -#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES * 2)
> >>> -
> >>> -int __node_distance(int from, int to);
> >>> -#define node_distance(a, b) __node_distance(a, b)
> >>> -
> >>> -extern nodemask_t numa_nodes_parsed __initdata;
> >>> -
> >>> -extern bool numa_off;
> >>> -
> >>> -/* Mappings between node number and cpus on that node. */
> >>> -extern cpumask_var_t node_to_cpumask_map[MAX_NUMNODES];
> >>> -void numa_clear_node(unsigned int cpu);
> >>> -
> >>> -#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS
> >>> -const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node);
> >>> -#else
> >>> -/* Returns a pointer to the cpumask of CPUs on Node 'node'. */
> >>> -static inline const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
> >>> -{
> >>> - return node_to_cpumask_map[node];
> >>> -}
> >>> -#endif
> >>> -
> >>> -void __init arm64_numa_init(void);
> >>> -int __init numa_add_memblk(int nodeid, u64 start, u64 end);
> >>> -void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance);
> >>> -void __init numa_free_distance(void);
> >>> -void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid);
> >>> -void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu);
> >>> -void numa_add_cpu(unsigned int cpu);
> >>> -void numa_remove_cpu(unsigned int cpu);
> >>> -
> >>> -#else /* CONFIG_NUMA */
> >>> -
> >>> -static inline void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu) { }
> >>> -static inline void numa_add_cpu(unsigned int cpu) { }
> >>> -static inline void numa_remove_cpu(unsigned int cpu) { }
> >>> -static inline void arm64_numa_init(void) { }
> >>> -static inline void early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid) { }
> >>> -
> >>> -#endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */
> >>> +#include <asm-generic/numa.h>
> >>>
> >>> #endif /* __ASM_NUMA_H */
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile b/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile
> >>> index d91030f0ffee..928c308b044b 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/Makefile
> >>> @@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ obj-y := dma-mapping.o extable.o fault.o init.o \
> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE) += hugetlbpage.o
> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_PTDUMP_CORE) += dump.o
> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_PTDUMP_DEBUGFS) += ptdump_debugfs.o
> >>> -obj-$(CONFIG_NUMA) += numa.o
> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL) += physaddr.o
> >>> KASAN_SANITIZE_physaddr.o += n
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/base/Kconfig b/drivers/base/Kconfig
> >>> index 8d7001712062..73c2151de194 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/base/Kconfig
> >>> +++ b/drivers/base/Kconfig
> >>> @@ -210,4 +210,10 @@ config GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY
> >>> appropriate scaling, sysfs interface for reading capacity values at
> >>> runtime.
> >>>
> >>> +config GENERIC_ARCH_NUMA
> >>> + bool
> >>> + help
> >>> + Enable support for generic numa implementation. Currently, RISC-V
> >>> + and ARM64 uses it.
> >>> +
> >>> endmenu
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/base/Makefile b/drivers/base/Makefile
> >>> index 157452080f3d..c3d02c644222 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/base/Makefile
> >>> +++ b/drivers/base/Makefile
> >>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL) += pinctrl.o
> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_DEV_COREDUMP) += devcoredump.o
> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_MSI_IRQ_DOMAIN) += platform-msi.o
> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY) += arch_topology.o
> >>> +obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_ARCH_NUMA) += arch_numa.o
> >>>
> >>> obj-y += test/
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
> >>> similarity index 100%
> >>> rename from arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> >>> rename to drivers/base/arch_numa.c
> >>
> >> drivers/base/ does not seem right place to host generic NUMA code.
> >
> > I chose drivers/base because the common topology code is also present there.
> > drivers/base/arch_topology.c under GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY
> > The idea is to keep all common arch(at least between RISC-V & ARM64)
> > related code at one place.
> >
> >> Probably it should be either mm/ or kernel/. The other question here
> >
> > I am fine with mm/arch_numa.c as well if that is preferred over driver/base.
>
> GENERIC_ARCH_NUMA being near other shared code such as GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY
> do make sense. That being said, its a small nit and can be figured out later.
>
> >
> >> would be if existing arm64 NUMA implementation is sufficient enough
> >> for generic NUMA. I would expect any platform selecting this config
> >> should get some NUMA enabled, will be that be true with present code ?
> >
> > It is for RISC-V. Here is the RISC-V support patch (last patch in the series)
> >
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/2020-August/001659.html
> >
>
> + Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> There is another patch/discussion which is trying to unify ARM64 NUMA init
> code with X86 (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11651437/). I am wondering
> if all three platforms could use GENERIC_ARCH_NUMA.
>

Gmail decided to convert my previous reply to HTML for some reason and
was blocked by the mailing lists.
Here was my earlier response and apologies for the noise if you
received it twice.

That is certainly an awesome goal to achieve. I agree that there are a
lot of similarities between two implementations
that can be leveraged under common code. But the current arm64 or x86
numa implementation
have also enough differences that can't just be reused for either.
This series did not introduce any functional
difference to arm64 numa code and just moved the existing code between
files. I don't think that's possible
for x86 under GENERIC_ARCH_NUMA. It requires a bit more effort to do
that and I am interested to explore that.

How about merging this series first and slowly moving pieces of x86
NUMA code to generic numa code as a separate series ?

> >> Otherwise it will be difficult to name it as GENERIC_ARCH_NUMA.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> linux-riscv mailing list
> >> linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
> >
> >
> >



--
Regards,
Atish