On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 10:33:04PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > spapr_numa_write_rtas_dt() is called from spapr_dt_rtas(), which in > turned is called by spapr_build_fdt(). spapr_build_fdt() is called in > two places: spapr_machine_reset() and do_client_architecture_support(). > When called in machine_reset() we're writing RTAS nodes with NUMA > artifacts without going through CAS first. > > This is not an issue because we always write the same thing in DT, since > we support just FORM1 NUMA affinity. With the upcoming FORM2 support, > we're now reliant on guest choice to decide what to write. > > Instead of taking a guess (e.g. default to FORM1, switch to FORM2 if > guest chooses it), postpone the writing of > ibm,associativity-reference-points and ibm,max-associativity-domains > until we're sure what was negotiated with the guest. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb...@gmail.com>
I think it makes sense to fold this in with 1/8 moving the calculation
itself until after CAS.
This does make a (theoretical) functional change - it means that NUMA
information is not available before CAS, which it was before. I think
that's very unlikely to break anything, but I wonder if we should make
it dependent on the machine version just to be safe.
> ---
> hw/ppc/spapr_numa.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_numa.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_numa.c
> index 04a86f9b5b..e1a7f80076 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_numa.c
> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_numa.c
> @@ -379,6 +379,10 @@ static void
> spapr_numa_FORM1_write_rtas_dt(SpaprMachineState *spapr,
> */
> void spapr_numa_write_rtas_dt(SpaprMachineState *spapr, void *fdt, int rtas)
> {
> + if (spapr_ovec_empty(spapr->ov5_cas)) {
> + return;
> + }
> +
> spapr_numa_FORM1_write_rtas_dt(spapr, fdt, rtas);
> }
>
--
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
