On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 08:42:55AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
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.
With the patch below memblock_validate_numa_coverage(0) should also work and it makes more sense.
@Andrew, I can take both this and Marc's new patch via memblock tree if you prefer.
From de55af44c02bc9aa43f05a785ac66a5aafa43354 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" rppt@kernel.org Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 11:13:47 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] memblock: allow zero threshold in validate_numa_converage()
Currently memblock validate_numa_converage() returns false negative when threshold set to zero.
Make the check if the memory size with invalid node ID is greater than the threshold exclusive to fix that.
Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) rppt@kernel.org --- mm/memblock.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c index 0389ce5cd281..095c18b5c430 100644 --- a/mm/memblock.c +++ b/mm/memblock.c @@ -735,7 +735,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) /** * memblock_validate_numa_coverage - check if amount of memory with * no node ID assigned is less than a threshold - * @threshold_bytes: maximal number of pages that can have unassigned node + * @threshold_bytes: maximal memory size that can have unassigned node * ID (in bytes). * * A buggy firmware may report memory that does not belong to any node. @@ -755,7 +755,7 @@ bool __init_memblock memblock_validate_numa_coverage(unsigned long threshold_byt nr_pages += end_pfn - start_pfn; }
- if ((nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT) >= threshold_bytes) { + if ((nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT) > threshold_bytes) { mem_size_mb = memblock_phys_mem_size() >> 20; pr_err("NUMA: no nodes coverage for %luMB of %luMB RAM\n", (nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT) >> 20, mem_size_mb);