Hi Mike,
On Sun, 01 Dec 2024 19:32:22 +0000, Mike Rapoport rppt@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Marc,
On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 09:27:02AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
Commit 767507654c22 ("arch_numa: switch over to numa_memblks") significantly cleaned up the NUMA registration code, but also dropped a significant check that was refusing to accept to configure a memblock with an invalid nid.
...
while previous kernel versions were able to recognise how brain-damaged the machine is, and only build a fake node.
Use the memblock_validate_numa_coverage() helper to restore some sanity and a "working" system.
Fixes: 767507654c22 ("arch_numa: switch over to numa_memblks") Suggested-by: Mike Rapoport rppt@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier maz@kernel.org Cc: Catalin Marinas catalin.marinas@arm.com Cc: Will Deacon will@kernel.org Cc: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com Cc: Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com Cc: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Cc: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
drivers/base/arch_numa.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c index e187016764265..c63a72a1fed64 100644 --- a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c +++ b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c @@ -208,6 +208,10 @@ static int __init numa_register_nodes(void) { int nid;
- /* Check the validity of the memblock/node mapping */
- if (!memblock_validate_numa_coverage(1))
I've changed this to memblock_validate_numa_coverage(0) and applied along with my patch that changed memblock_validate_numa_coverage() to work with 0:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rppt/memblock.git/log/?h=thu...
Can you please verify that it works on your "quality hardware"?
Commit 427c6179e159b in your tree still has memblock_validate_numa_coverage(1). Forgot to push out the updated version?
Flipping this to 0 locally, I have verified that this still allows the old thing to trudge along:
root@duodenum:~# uname -a Linux duodenum 6.12.0-12115-g427c6179e159-dirty #3896 SMP PREEMPT Sun Dec 1 19:43:13 GMT 2024 aarch64
Thanks again,
M.