[PATCH] arm64: numa: rightsize the distance array

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:31:18 +0530
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual at arm.com> wrote:

> Hello Jonathan,

Hi Anshuman,

> 
> On 07/08/2020 05:08 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > Unfortunately we are currently calling numa_alloc_distance well before we call
> > setup_node_to_cpu_mask_map means that nr_node_ids is set to MAX_NUMNODES.
> > This wastes a bit of memory and is confusing to the reader.  
> 
> With defconfig where CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT = 2 i.e MAX_NUMNODES = 4, the total
> numa_distance size is 16 bytes (individual entries here are just u8). 

That's another issue to tidy up.  The current defconfig isn't big enough to
support existing platforms (we are shipping 8 node systems),
let alone next generation.  Bit of an open question on how far to push it up
though. Perhaps 64?  Given CXL we are probably going to soon see systems with
a lot more nodes.  I'll send a patch for that and we can argue the exact
value then.

> Even
> with MAX_NUMNODES = 256, numa_distance is going to be just 64K. Hence there
> might not be much space to be saved that would need optimizing this path.
> Please correct me if I have missed something.

Agreed.  The saving is small.  This was mostly about the code being misleading.
It gives the impression of doing dynamic sizing but doesn't actually do so as it
is using nr_node_ids before that value has been updated.  I would prefer
to make the code 'obviously' correct.  The x86 path is one approach, simply
hard coding the size as a constant is another.

The secondary advantage would be to make it easy to unify this code across
architectures.  Kind of inevitable riscv will be here soon and it would be nice
not to have a third slight variation on the code.  I'd like to explore such
possible unification but it wasn't the main aim of this patch.

> 
> > 
> > Note we could just decide to hardcode it as MAX_NUMNODES but if so we should
> > do so explicitly.  
> 
> nr_node_ids = MAX_NUMNODES which is set from mm/page_alloc.c, yes asserting
> with an WARN_ON() that it is indeed MAX_NUMNODES would make sense.

OK, a WARN_ON would at least make it apparent this is a constant, not a dynamic
value as a reader of the code might assume (I did).

Could we just go further and use MAX_NUMNODES directly and ignore nr_node_ids
for this purpose?

> 
> > 
> > Looking at what x86 does, they do a walk of nodes_parsed and locally
> > establish the maximum node count seen.  We can't actually do that where we
> > were previously calling it in numa_init because nodes_parsed isn't set up
> > either yet.  So let us take a leaf entirely out of x86's book and make
> > the true assumption that nodes_parsed will definitely be set up before
> > we try to put a real value in this array.  Hence just do it on demand.  
> 
> So it is replacing one assumption i.e nr_node_ids = MAX_NUMNODES with another
> i.e nodes_parsed has been initialized, while trying to populate an entry.

Yes.  If we make it clearly a fixed value, then I'm happy with that solution
to this particular problem.

If not, I would argue that the use nodes_parsed makes it very much obvious that
we are assuming it was initialized.  (Though on that argument we would have
assumed nr_node_ids had it's final value in the existing code and it doesn't,
I come back to my main argument being to make the code 'obviously' correct).

> 
> > 
> > In order to avoid trying and failing to allocate the array multiple times
> > we do the same thing as x86 and set numa_distance = 1. This requires a
> > few small modifications elsewhere.  
> 
> Where ? Dont see numa_distance being set as 1.

See below, I have highlighted the line.

> 
> > 
> > Worth noting, that with one exception (which it appears can be removed [1])
> > the x86 and arm numa distance code is now identical.  Worth factoring it
> > out to some common location?
> > 
> > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170406124459.dwn5zhpr2xqg3lqm@node.shutemov.name
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron at huawei.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> > index aafcee3e3f7e..a2f549ef0a36 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> > @@ -255,13 +255,11 @@ void __init numa_free_distance(void)
> >  {
> >  	size_t size;
> >  
> > -	if (!numa_distance)
> > -		return;
> > -
> >  	size = numa_distance_cnt * numa_distance_cnt *
> >  		sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
> > -
> > -	memblock_free(__pa(numa_distance), size);
> > +	/* numa_distance could be 1LU marking allocation failure, test cnt */
> > +	if (numa_distance_cnt)
> > +		memblock_free(__pa(numa_distance), size);
> >  	numa_distance_cnt = 0;
> >  	numa_distance = NULL;
> >  }
> > @@ -271,20 +269,29 @@ void __init numa_free_distance(void)
> >   */
> >  static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
> >  {
> > +	nodemask_t nodes_parsed;
> >  	size_t size;
> > +	int i, j, cnt = 0;
> >  	u64 phys;
> > -	int i, j;
> >  
> > -	size = nr_node_ids * nr_node_ids * sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
> > +	/* size the new table and allocate it */
> > +	nodes_parsed = numa_nodes_parsed;
> > +	for_each_node_mask(i, nodes_parsed)
> > +		cnt = i;  
> 
> There is no nodemask related helper to fetch the highest bit set ?

Not that I can find.

There is nodes_weight(), but I think we can currently end up with holes,
and it definitely isn't obvious from the local code that we can't.


> 
> > +	cnt++;
> > +	size = cnt * cnt * sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
> >  	phys = memblock_find_in_range(0, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn),
> >  				      size, PAGE_SIZE);
> > -	if (WARN_ON(!phys))
> > +	if (!phys) {
> > +		pr_warn("Warning: can't allocate distance table!\n");
> > +		/* don't retry until explicitly reset */
> > +		numa_distance = (void *)1LU;

Here is where we set numa_distance to 1 in the error path.

> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> > -
> > +	}
> >  	memblock_reserve(phys, size);
> >  
> >  	numa_distance = __va(phys);
> > -	numa_distance_cnt = nr_node_ids;
> > +	numa_distance_cnt = cnt;
> >  
> >  	/* fill with the default distances */
> >  	for (i = 0; i < numa_distance_cnt; i++)
> > @@ -311,10 +318,8 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
> >   */
> >  void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
> >  {
> > -	if (!numa_distance) {
> > -		pr_warn_once("Warning: distance table not allocated yet\n");
> > +	if (!numa_distance && numa_alloc_distance() < 0)
> >  		return;
> > -	}
> >  
> >  	if (from >= numa_distance_cnt || to >= numa_distance_cnt ||
> >  			from < 0 || to < 0) {
> > @@ -384,10 +389,6 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
> >  	nodes_clear(node_possible_map);
> >  	nodes_clear(node_online_map);
> >  
> > -	ret = numa_alloc_distance();
> > -	if (ret < 0)
> > -		return ret;
> > -
> >  	ret = init_func();
> >  	if (ret < 0)
> >  		goto out_free_distance;
> >   
> 
> What is the primary objective here ? Reduce memory for numa_distance[]
> or unifying arm64's numa_init() with that of x86's ?

As mentioned above. The objective when I originally looked at this was
to make the code do what it appeared to do.  The approach chosen was about
the added benefit of unifying this part with x86 + riscv etc.
Always good to not reinvent the wheel.

Jonathan