Re: [PATCH 4/4] spapr: Fold spapr_node0_size() into its only caller

[David Gibson]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:33:30AM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:05:39 +1100
> David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > The Real Mode Area (RMA) needs to fit within the NUMA node owning memory
> > at address 0.  That's usually node 0, but can be a later one if there are
> > some nodes which have no memory (only CPUs).
> > 
> > This is currently handled by the spapr_node0_size() helper.  It has only
> > one caller, so there's not a lot of point splitting it out.  It's also
> > extremely easy to misread the code as clamping to the size of the smallest
> > node rather than the first node with any memory.
> > 
> > So, fold it into the caller, and add some commentary to make it a bit
> > clearer exactly what it's doing.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  hw/ppc/spapr.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> >  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > index 6c32ec3c0a..6a42c0f1c9 100644
> > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > @@ -295,20 +295,6 @@ static void spapr_dt_pa_features(SpaprMachineState 
> > *spapr,
> >      _FDT((fdt_setprop(fdt, offset, "ibm,pa-features", pa_features, 
> > pa_size)));
> >  }
> >  
> > -static hwaddr spapr_node0_size(MachineState *machine)
> > -{
> > -    if (machine->numa_state->num_nodes) {
> > -        int i;
> > -        for (i = 0; i < machine->numa_state->num_nodes; ++i) {
> > -            if (machine->numa_state->nodes[i].node_mem) {
> > -                return 
> > MIN(pow2floor(machine->numa_state->nodes[i].node_mem),
> > -                           machine->ram_size);
> > -            }
> > -        }
> > -    }
> > -    return machine->ram_size;
> > -}
> > -
> >  static void add_str(GString *s, const gchar *s1)
> >  {
> >      g_string_append_len(s, s1, strlen(s1) + 1);
> > @@ -2631,10 +2617,24 @@ static hwaddr spapr_rma_size(SpaprMachineState 
> > *spapr, Error **errp)
> >      MachineState *machine = MACHINE(spapr);
> >      SpaprMachineClass *smc = SPAPR_MACHINE_GET_CLASS(spapr);
> >      hwaddr rma_size = machine->ram_size;
> > -    hwaddr node0_size = spapr_node0_size(machine);
> >  
> >      /* RMA has to fit in the first NUMA node */
> > -    rma_size = MIN(rma_size, node0_size);
> > +    if (machine->numa_state->num_nodes) {
> > +        /*
> > +         * It's possible for there to be some zero-memory nodes first
> > +         * in the list.  We need the RMA to fit inside the memory of
> > +         * the first node which actually has some memory.
> > +         */
> > +        int i;
> > +
> > +        for (i = 0; i < machine->numa_state->num_nodes; ++i) {
> > +            if (machine->numa_state->nodes[i].node_mem != 0) {
> > +                hwaddr node_size = machine->numa_state->nodes[i].node_mem;
> > +                rma_size = MIN(rma_size, pow2floor(node_size));
> > +                break;
> > +            }
> > +        }
> > +    }
> >  
> >      /*
> >       * VRMA access is via a special 1TiB SLB mapping, so the RMA can
> > @@ -2651,6 +2651,11 @@ static hwaddr spapr_rma_size(SpaprMachineState 
> > *spapr, Error **errp)
> >          rma_size = MIN(rma_size, smc->rma_limit);
> >      }
> >  
> > +    /*
> > +     * RMA size must be a power of 2
> > +     */
> > +    rma_size = pow2floor(rma_size);
> > +
> 
> The patch is identical to the last spin, for which I had
> a comment already:

Ah, dangit.  It's actually not identical.  I put the pow2floor() back
in the node loop, but forgot to remove it from the bottom here.  I'll
put this one off for now.

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 12:25:55 +1100
> David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 11:32:49AM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > In any case, it would probably help to mention somewhere
> > > why the rounding is introduced by this patch.
> > 
> > Drat.  I meant to sort out your comment on the last spin better than
> > this, but got part way through and forgot what I was doing.
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I still think that the rounding introduced by this patch deserves
> some explanations in the changelog...

Yeah.. turns out this is more complicated than you'd think.  It is
indeed related to that block splitting you noticed.  Except that
AFAICT that block splitting is irrelevant in most cases, and broken
for most of the remaining cases.  It seems to have been based on a
misunderstanding of how the kernel's early memory block handling
works.

My intention had been to make this patch do just the cleanup without
the rounding change, then address the rounding change another day.
Except I messed up the first part.

-- 
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