[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 36/37] xen/arm: Provide Kconfig options for Arm to enable NUMA

  • To: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@xxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 10:33:46 +0200
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=iyMZMmPtZ3Mp+s6sZOxcPkrbJcV0Hxysk8STaKxn9nY=; b=dP9nib0dDHuSeMA/+/Jd9xZp1cT9SMRWsQDUhOpv2j2OPHzY4pzfC0JMQy0OBvn74p8GPhidfldwagpCJgBkpscM9KOLkHjTlO0jP1JuRgtlLDmgbHu9qV03u6T0NP0l1fclPkWLBRnz5p+BBoaQWB6gF+i62wMQoafkyfScVkLtCCZZj7hUvnxMITar6+ag0BfOF+nzvZp7MPdvCmvhfYhfwFY4izryqjJNSBzXmHGaDOnsDGMxwBtooe+tCJAILarc4WhbmnpGKGaLNUOoBN+slVrkWwpvroIYTGvLxflAcMll9OxFBtP1/6TLHyhU+m+QmxzqB38xkjVKl9PlzQ==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=BtgQhDKTyaZtPIGKWgp/aRW7Y2FqlogMlNj67QYdSCq0SBUSb81uWYEWtg9kDQ1pQvonaZ1PjJcCccxKnAkNnLpAMQbOMXFsdFbPNaBN/dl8HuJU/TdFgJYqkA6ie4JJH8VW7tPR8sFqeda+WZqwej6MDNQ5FXw/wjWGPrea4ncM6MxutM0s82ZjpVZKS5jljOuNcFKSQzCzva1aDFGrzJaoG9YJieik0Y1UuklZ69v85erlC9rvpGTwysZcPV9KGVwOfMTxA0KaH4Kflx0XI6CRcYslzfom0334o6B26PBVpe16SQlPkoMeSleHCqnp6cRTgVXsZdRVqEshwqk8mg==
  • Authentication-results: arm.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;arm.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, julien@xxxxxxx, Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:34:08 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 24.09.2021 21:39, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, Wei Chen wrote:
>> On 2021/9/24 11:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, Wei Chen wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -34,6 +34,17 @@ config ACPI
>>>>      Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) support for Xen is
>>>>      an alternative to device tree on ARM64.
>>>>   + config DEVICE_TREE_NUMA
>>>> +  def_bool n
>>>> +  select NUMA
>>>> +
>>>> +config ARM_NUMA
>>>> +  bool "Arm NUMA (Non-Uniform Memory Access) Support (UNSUPPORTED)" if
>>> Should it be: depends on HAS_DEVICE_TREE ?
>>> (And eventually depends on HAS_DEVICE_TREE || ACPI)
>> As the discussion in RFC [1]. We want to make ARM_NUMA as a generic
>> option can be selected by users. And depends on has_device_tree
>> If we add HAS_DEVICE_TREE || ACPI as dependencies for ARM_NUMA,
>> does it become a loop dependency?
>> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2021-08/msg00888.html
> OK, I am fine with that. I was just trying to catch the case where a
> user selects "ARM_NUMA" but actually neither ACPI nor HAS_DEVICE_TREE
> are selected so nothing happens. I was trying to make it clear that
> ARM_NUMA depends on having at least one between HAS_DEVICE_TREE or ACPI
> because otherwise it is not going to work.
> That said, I don't think this is important because HAS_DEVICE_TREE
> cannot be unselected. So if we cannot find a way to express the
> dependency, I think it is fine to keep the patch as is.

So how about doing things the other way around: ARM_NUMA has no prompt
and defaults to ACPI_NUMA || DT_NUMA, and DT_NUMA gains a prompt instead
(and, for Arm at least, ACPI_NUMA as well; this might even be worthwhile
to have on x86 down the road).




Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.