On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:24:16 +0000, Mike Rapoport rppt@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 04:52:14PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:03:33 +0000, Mike Rapoport rppt@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Marc,
diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c index e187016764265..5457248eb0811 100644 --- a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c +++ b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c @@ -207,7 +207,21 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn) static int __init numa_register_nodes(void) { int nid;
- struct memblock_region *mblk;
- /* Check that valid nid is set to memblks */
- for_each_mem_region(mblk) {
int mblk_nid = memblock_get_region_node(mblk);phys_addr_t start = mblk->base;phys_addr_t end = mblk->base + mblk->size - 1;if (mblk_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || mblk_nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %pap-%pap]\n",mblk_nid, &start, &end);return -EINVAL;}We have memblock_validate_numa_coverage() that checks that amount of memory with unset node id is less than a threshold. The loop here can be replaced with something like
if (!memblock_validate_numa_coverage(0)) return -EINVAL;
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to result in something that works (relevant extract only):
[ 0.000000] NUMA: no nodes coverage for 9MB of 65516MB RAM [ 0.000000] NUMA: Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000500000-0x0000000fff0fffff] [ 0.000000] NUMA: no nodes coverage for 0MB of 65516MB RAM [ 0.000000] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000000000001d40
Any idea?
With 0 as the threshold the validation fails for the fake node, but it should be fine with memblock_validate_numa_coverage(1)
Huh, subtle. This indeed seems to work. I'll respin the patch next week.
Thanks for your help,
M.