diff mbox series

[v2,6/6] ACPI: RISCV: Enable ACPI based NUMA

Message ID 01cb5780041565784d459cd94a5c4f55eaa87739.1709780590.git.haibo1.xu@intel.com
State New
Headers show
Series Add ACPI NUMA support for RISC-V | expand

Commit Message

Haibo Xu March 7, 2024, 8:47 a.m. UTC
Enable ACPI based NUMA for RISCV in Kconfig.

Signed-off-by: Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@intel.com>
---
 arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Comments

Sunil V L April 1, 2024, 7:18 a.m. UTC | #1
Hi Haibo,

On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 04:47:58PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> Enable ACPI based NUMA for RISCV in Kconfig.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@intel.com>
> ---
>  arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> index 0bfcfec67ed5..0fb55f166701 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> @@ -447,6 +447,7 @@ config NUMA
>  	select HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
>  	select NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK
>  	select NEED_PER_CPU_PAGE_FIRST_CHUNK
> +	select ACPI_NUMA if ACPI

If the firmware didn't provide the SRAT/SLIT on ACPI based systems, then
there will be a message "Failed to initialise from firmware" from
arch_acpi_numa_init(). This is not specific to RISC-V. But I am
wondering why should it be pr_info instead of pr_debug.

Thanks,
Sunil
>  	select OF_NUMA
>  	select USE_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID
>  	help
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>
Sunil V L April 3, 2024, 3:54 a.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 04:57:30PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> If the firmware didn't provide the SRAT/SLIT on ACPI based systems, then
> >> there will be a message "Failed to initialise from firmware" from
> >> arch_acpi_numa_init(). This is not specific to RISC-V. But I am
> >> wondering why should it be pr_info instead of pr_debug.
> >>
> >
> > My understanding is maybe it just wants to expose explicit logs to
> > avoid any potential bugs from FW or Kernel.
> 
> There are lots of ACPI enabled systems that aren't NUMA (single
> socket servers, desktops, laptops). Making this "pr_info()" would just
> add noise to the boot on all of those.
> 
Exactly. But this is an existing pr_info message across architectures.
My suggestion is to add one more patch in this series to convert
this to pr_debug unless someone has strong reason to keep it pr_info.

Thanks,
Sunil
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
index 0bfcfec67ed5..0fb55f166701 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
@@ -447,6 +447,7 @@  config NUMA
 	select HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
 	select NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK
 	select NEED_PER_CPU_PAGE_FIRST_CHUNK
+	select ACPI_NUMA if ACPI
 	select OF_NUMA
 	select USE_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID
 	help