[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] spapr, spapr_numa: move lookup-arrays handling to spa
From: |
David Gibson |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] spapr, spapr_numa: move lookup-arrays handling to spapr_numa.c |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Sep 2020 11:34:30 +1000 |
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:56:43AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> In a similar fashion as the previous patch, let's move the
> handling of ibm,associativity-lookup-arrays from spapr.c to
> spapr_numa.c. A spapr_numa_write_assoc_lookup_arrays() helper was
> created, and spapr_dt_dynamic_reconfiguration_memory() can now
> use it to advertise the lookup-arrays.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413@gmail.com>
> ---
> hw/ppc/spapr.c | 25 ++----------------------
> hw/ppc/spapr_numa.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/hw/ppc/spapr_numa.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> index 172f965fe0..65d2ccd578 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> @@ -535,13 +535,10 @@ static int
> spapr_dt_dynamic_reconfiguration_memory(SpaprMachineState *spapr,
> void *fdt)
> {
> MachineState *machine = MACHINE(spapr);
> - int nb_numa_nodes = machine->numa_state->num_nodes;
> - int ret, i, offset;
> + int ret, offset;
> uint64_t lmb_size = SPAPR_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE;
> uint32_t prop_lmb_size[] = {cpu_to_be32(lmb_size >> 32),
> cpu_to_be32(lmb_size & 0xffffffff)};
> - uint32_t *int_buf, *cur_index, buf_len;
> - int nr_nodes = nb_numa_nodes ? nb_numa_nodes : 1;
> MemoryDeviceInfoList *dimms = NULL;
>
> /*
> @@ -582,25 +579,7 @@ static int
> spapr_dt_dynamic_reconfiguration_memory(SpaprMachineState *spapr,
> return ret;
> }
>
> - /* ibm,associativity-lookup-arrays */
> - buf_len = (nr_nodes * 4 + 2) * sizeof(uint32_t);
> - cur_index = int_buf = g_malloc0(buf_len);
> - int_buf[0] = cpu_to_be32(nr_nodes);
> - int_buf[1] = cpu_to_be32(4); /* Number of entries per associativity list
> */
> - cur_index += 2;
> - for (i = 0; i < nr_nodes; i++) {
> - uint32_t associativity[] = {
> - cpu_to_be32(0x0),
> - cpu_to_be32(0x0),
> - cpu_to_be32(0x0),
> - cpu_to_be32(i)
> - };
> - memcpy(cur_index, associativity, sizeof(associativity));
> - cur_index += 4;
> - }
> - ret = fdt_setprop(fdt, offset, "ibm,associativity-lookup-arrays",
> int_buf,
> - (cur_index - int_buf) * sizeof(uint32_t));
> - g_free(int_buf);
> + ret = spapr_numa_write_assoc_lookup_arrays(spapr, fdt, offset);
>
> return ret;
> }
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_numa.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_numa.c
> index b8882d209e..9eb4bdbe80 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_numa.c
> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_numa.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,45 @@ int spapr_numa_fixup_cpu_dt(SpaprMachineState *spapr, void
> *fdt,
> vcpu_assoc, sizeof(vcpu_assoc));
> }
>
> +
> +int spapr_numa_write_assoc_lookup_arrays(SpaprMachineState *spapr, void *fdt,
> + int offset)
> +{
> + MachineState *machine = MACHINE(spapr);
> + SpaprMachineClass *smc = SPAPR_MACHINE_GET_CLASS(spapr);
> + int nb_numa_nodes = machine->numa_state->num_nodes;
> + int nr_nodes = nb_numa_nodes ? nb_numa_nodes : 1;
> + uint32_t *int_buf, *cur_index, buf_len;
> + int ret, i, j;
> +
> + /* ibm,associativity-lookup-arrays */
> + buf_len = (nr_nodes * MAX_DISTANCE_REF_POINTS + 2) * sizeof(uint32_t);
> + cur_index = int_buf = g_malloc0(buf_len);
> + int_buf[0] = cpu_to_be32(nr_nodes);
> + /* Number of entries per associativity list */
> + int_buf[1] = cpu_to_be32(MAX_DISTANCE_REF_POINTS);
> + cur_index += 2;
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_nodes; i++) {
> + /*
> + * For the lookup-array we use the ibm,associativity array,
> + * from numa_assoc_array. without the first element (size).
> + */
> + uint32_t associativity[MAX_DISTANCE_REF_POINTS];
> +
> + for (j = 0; j < MAX_DISTANCE_REF_POINTS; j++) {
> + associativity[j] = smc->numa_assoc_array[i][j + 1];
> + }
> +
> + memcpy(cur_index, associativity, sizeof(associativity));
AFAICT, you could just use a single memcpy() to copy from the
numa_assoc_array() into the property here, rather than using a loop
and temporary array.
> + cur_index += 4;
Shouldn't this be += MAX_DISTANCE_REF_POINTS?
> + }
> + ret = fdt_setprop(fdt, offset, "ibm,associativity-lookup-arrays",
> int_buf,
> + (cur_index - int_buf) * sizeof(uint32_t));
> + g_free(int_buf);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Helper that writes ibm,associativity-reference-points and
> * max-associativity-domains in the RTAS pointed by @rtas
> diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/spapr_numa.h b/include/hw/ppc/spapr_numa.h
> index f92fb4f28a..f6127501a6 100644
> --- a/include/hw/ppc/spapr_numa.h
> +++ b/include/hw/ppc/spapr_numa.h
> @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ void spapr_numa_write_associativity_dt(SpaprMachineState
> *spapr, void *fdt,
> int offset, int nodeid);
> int spapr_numa_fixup_cpu_dt(SpaprMachineState *spapr, void *fdt,
> int offset, PowerPCCPU *cpu);
> +int spapr_numa_write_assoc_lookup_arrays(SpaprMachineState *spapr, void *fdt,
> + int offset);
>
>
> #endif /* HW_SPAPR_NUMA_H */
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- [PATCH v2 0/7] pseries NUMA distance rework, Daniel Henrique Barboza, 2020/09/01
- [PATCH v2 2/7] ppc/spapr_nvdimm: turn spapr_dt_nvdimm() static, Daniel Henrique Barboza, 2020/09/01
- [PATCH v2 3/7] spapr: introduce SpaprMachineClass::numa_assoc_array, Daniel Henrique Barboza, 2020/09/01
- [PATCH v2 5/7] spapr, spapr_numa: move lookup-arrays handling to spapr_numa.c, Daniel Henrique Barboza, 2020/09/01
- Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] spapr, spapr_numa: move lookup-arrays handling to spapr_numa.c,
David Gibson <=
- [PATCH v2 1/7] ppc: introducing spapr_numa.c NUMA code helper, Daniel Henrique Barboza, 2020/09/01
- [PATCH v2 6/7] spapr_numa: move NVLink2 associativity handling to spapr_numa.c, Daniel Henrique Barboza, 2020/09/01
- [PATCH v2 4/7] spapr, spapr_numa: handle vcpu ibm,associativity, Daniel Henrique Barboza, 2020/09/01
- [PATCH v2 7/7] spapr_hcall: h_home_node_associativity now reads numa_assoc_array, Daniel Henrique Barboza, 2020/09/01
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] pseries NUMA distance rework, David Gibson, 2020/09/02