[PATCH v2 3/3] powerpc/numa: Fill distance_lookup_table for offline nodes

[Michael Ellerman]

Srikar Dronamraju <srikar at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> Scheduler expects unique number of node distances to be available at
> boot.

I think it needs "the number of unique node distances" ?

> It uses node distance to calculate this unique node distances.

It iterates over all pairs of nodes and records node_distance() for that
pair, and then calculates the set of unique distances.

> On POWER, node distances for offline nodes is not available. However,
> POWER already knows unique possible node distances.

I think it would be more accurate to say PAPR rather than POWER there.
It's PAPR that defines the way we determine distances and imposes that
limitation.

> Fake the offline node's distance_lookup_table entries so that all
> possible node distances are updated.

Does this work if we have a single node offline at boot?

Say we start with:

node distances:
node   0   1
  0:  10  20
  1:  20  10

And node 2 is offline at boot. We can only initialise that nodes entries
in the distance_lookup_table:

		while (i--)
			distance_lookup_table[node][i] = node;

By filling them all with 2 that causes node_distance(2, X) to return the
maximum distance for all other nodes X, because we won't break out of
the loop in __node_distance():

	for (i = 0; i < distance_ref_points_depth; i++) {
		if (distance_lookup_table[a][i] == distance_lookup_table[b][i])
			break;

		/* Double the distance for each NUMA level */
		distance *= 2;
	}

If distance_ref_points_depth was 4 we'd return 160.

That'd leave us with 3 unique distances at boot, 10, 20, 160.

But when node 2 comes online it might introduce more than 1 new distance
value, eg. it could be that the actual distances are:

node distances:
node   0   1   2
  0:  10  20  40
  1:  20  10  80
  2:  40  80  10

ie. we now have 4 distances, 10, 20, 40, 80.

What am I missing?

> However this only needs to be done if the number of unique node
> distances that can be computed for online nodes is less than the
> number of possible unique node distances as represented by
> distance_ref_points_depth.

Looking at a few machines they all have distance_ref_points_depth = 2.

So maybe that explains it, in practice we only see 10, 20, 40.


> When the node is actually onlined, distance_lookup_table will be
> updated with actual entries.

> Cc: linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org
> Cc: Nathan Lynch <nathanl at linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider at arm.com>
> Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot at linaro.org>
> Cc: Geetika Moolchandani <Geetika.Moolchandani1 at ibm.com>
> Cc: Laurent Dufour <ldufour at linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: kernel test robot <lkp at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 70 insertions(+)
>
> Changelog:
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20210701041552.112072-3-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com/t/#u
> [ Fixed a missing prototype warning Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp at intel.com>]
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index 3c124928a16d..0ee79a08c9e1 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -856,6 +856,75 @@ void __init dump_numa_cpu_topology(void)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Scheduler expects unique number of node distances to be available at
> + * boot. It uses node distance to calculate this unique node distances. On
> + * POWER, node distances for offline nodes is not available. However, POWER
> + * already knows unique possible node distances. Fake the offline node's
> + * distance_lookup_table entries so that all possible node distances are
> + * updated.
> + */

> +static void __init fake_update_distance_lookup_table(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned long distance_map;
> +	int i, nr_levels, nr_depth, node;

Are they distances, depths, or levels? :)

Bit more consistency in the variable names might make the code easier to
follow.

> +
> +	if (!numa_enabled)
> +		return;
> +
> +	if (!form1_affinity)
> +		return;

That doesn't exist since Aneesh's FORM2 series, so that will need a
rebase, and possibly some more rework to interact with that series.

> +	/*
> +	 * distance_ref_points_depth lists the unique numa domains
> +	 * available. However it ignore LOCAL_DISTANCE. So add +1
> +	 * to get the actual number of unique distances.
> +	 */
> +	nr_depth = distance_ref_points_depth + 1;

num_depths would be a better name IMHO.

> +
> +	WARN_ON(nr_depth > sizeof(distance_map));

Warn but then continue, and corrupt something on the stack? Seems like a
bad idea :)

I guess it's too early to use bitmap_alloc(). But can we at least return
if nr_depth is too big.

> +
> +	bitmap_zero(&distance_map, nr_depth);
> +	bitmap_set(&distance_map, 0, 1);
> +
> +	for_each_online_node(node) {
> +		int nd, distance = LOCAL_DISTANCE;
> +
> +		if (node == first_online_node)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		nd = __node_distance(node, first_online_node);
> +		for (i = 0; i < nr_depth; i++, distance *= 2) {

		for (i = 0, distance = LOCAL_DISTANCE; i < nr_depth; i++, distance *= 2) {

Could make it clearer what the for loop is doing I think.

> +			if (distance == nd) {
> +				bitmap_set(&distance_map, i, 1);
> +				break;
> +			}
> +		}
> +		nr_levels = bitmap_weight(&distance_map, nr_depth);
> +		if (nr_levels == nr_depth)
> +			return;
> +	}
> +
> +	for_each_node(node) {
> +		if (node_online(node))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		i = find_first_zero_bit(&distance_map, nr_depth);
> +		if (i >= nr_depth || i == 0) {

Neither of those can happen can they?

We checked the bitmap weight in the previous for loop, or at the bottom
of this one, and returned if we'd filled the map already.

And we set bit zero explicitly with bitmap_set().

> +			pr_warn("Levels(%d) not matching levels(%d)", nr_levels, nr_depth);
> +			return;
> +		}
> +
> +		bitmap_set(&distance_map, i, 1);
> +		while (i--)
> +			distance_lookup_table[node][i] = node;

That leaves distance_lookup_table[node][i+1] and so on uninitialised, or
initialised to zero because it's static, is that OK?

> +		nr_levels = bitmap_weight(&distance_map, nr_depth);
> +		if (nr_levels == nr_depth)
> +			return;
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  /* Initialize NODE_DATA for a node on the local memory */
>  static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
>  {
> @@ -971,6 +1040,7 @@ void __init mem_topology_setup(void)
>  		 */
>  		numa_setup_cpu(cpu);
>  	}
> +	fake_update_distance_lookup_table();
>  }
>  
>  void __init initmem_init(void)


cheers