On 21.06.2014 [13:06:53 +1000], Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 06/21/2014 08:55 AM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 16.06.2014 [17:53:49 +1000], Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> >> Current QEMU does not support memoryless NUMA nodes.
> >> This prepares SPAPR for that.
> >>
> >> This moves 2 calls of spapr_populate_memory_node() into
> >> the existing loop which handles nodes other than than
> >> the first one.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru>
> >> ---
> >> hw/ppc/spapr.c | 31 +++++++++++--------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> >> index cb3a10a..666b676 100644
> >> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> >> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> >> @@ -689,28 +689,13 @@ static void spapr_populate_memory_node(void *fdt,
> >> int nodeid, hwaddr start,
> >>
> >> static int spapr_populate_memory(sPAPREnvironment *spapr, void *fdt)
> >> {
> >> - hwaddr node0_size, mem_start, node_size;
> >> + hwaddr mem_start, node_size;
> >> int i;
> >>
> >> - /* memory node(s) */
> >> - if (nb_numa_nodes > 1 && node_mem[0] < ram_size) {
> >> - node0_size = node_mem[0];
> >> - } else {
> >> - node0_size = ram_size;
> >> - }
> >> -
> >> - /* RMA */
> >> - spapr_populate_memory_node(fdt, 0, 0, spapr->rma_size);
> >> -
> >> - /* RAM: Node 0 */
> >> - if (node0_size > spapr->rma_size) {
> >> - spapr_populate_memory_node(fdt, 0, spapr->rma_size,
> >> - node0_size - spapr->rma_size);
> >> - }
> >> -
> >> - /* RAM: Node 1 and beyond */
> >> - mem_start = node0_size;
> >> - for (i = 1; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) {
> >> + for (i = 0, mem_start = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes; ++i) {
> >> + if (!node_mem[i]) {
> >> + continue;
> >> + }
> >
> > Doesn't this skip memoryless nodes? What actually puts the memoryless
> > node in the device-tree?
>
> It does skip.
>
> > And if you were to put them in, wouldn't spapr_populate_memory_node()
> > fail because we'd be creating two nodes with memory@XXX where XXX is the
> > same (starting address) for both?
>
> I cannot do this now - there is no way to tell from the command line
> where I want NUMA node memory start from so I'll end up with multiple
> nodes with the same name and QEMU won't start. When NUMA fixes reach
> upstream, I'll try to work out something on top of that.
So in mst's tree, which I've rebased your patches, we have a struct
defining each NUMA node, which has a size (and the index is the nodeid).
I've got patches working that allow for sparse indexing, but I'm curious
what you think we should do for the naming. I can send out the patches,
with the caveat that architectures still need to fix the remaining
issues for memoryless nodes?
Thanks,
Nish
