[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: [PATCH 08/37] xen/x86: add detection of discontinous node memory range
Hi Jan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: 2022年1月19日 0:13 > To: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx>; xen- > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx; julien@xxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/37] xen/x86: add detection of discontinous node > memory range > > On 23.09.2021 14:02, Wei Chen wrote: > > One NUMA node may contain several memory blocks. In current Xen > > code, Xen will maintain a node memory range for each node to cover > > all its memory blocks. But here comes the problem, in the gap of > > one node's two memory blocks, if there are some memory blocks don't > > belong to this node (remote memory blocks). This node's memory range > > will be expanded to cover these remote memory blocks. > > > > One node's memory range contains othe nodes' memory, this is obviously > > not very reasonable. This means current NUMA code only can support > > node has continous memory blocks. However, on a physical machine, the > > addresses of multiple nodes can be interleaved. > > I will adjust above paragraph to: ... This means current NUMA code only can support node has no interlaced memory blocks. ... > > So in this patch, we add code to detect discontinous memory blocks > > for one node. NUMA initializtion will be failed and error messages > > will be printed when Xen detect such hardware configuration. I will adjust above paragraph to: So in this patch, we add code to detect interleave of different nodes' memory blocks. NUMA initialization will be ... > > Luckily what you actually check for isn't as strict as "discontinuous": > What you're after is no interleaving of memory. A single nod can still > have multiple discontiguous ranges (and that'll often be the case on > x86). Please adjust description and function name accordingly. > Yes, we're checking for no interlaced memory among nodes. In one node's memory range, the memory block still can be discontinuous. I will rename the subject to: "add detection of interlaced memory for different nodes" And I would rename is_node_memory_continuous to: node_without_interleave_memory. > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/srat.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/srat.c > > @@ -271,6 +271,36 @@ acpi_numa_processor_affinity_init(const struct > acpi_srat_cpu_affinity *pa) > > pxm, pa->apic_id, node); > > } > > > > +/* > > + * Check to see if there are other nodes within this node's range. > > + * We just need to check full contains situation. Because overlaps > > + * have been checked before by conflicting_memblks. > > + */ > > +static bool __init is_node_memory_continuous(nodeid_t nid, > > + paddr_t start, paddr_t end) > > This indentation style demands indenting like ... > Ok. > > +{ > > + nodeid_t i; > > ... variable declarations at function scope, i.e. in a Linux-style > file by a tab. > > > + > > + struct node *nd = &nodes[nid]; > > + for_each_node_mask(i, memory_nodes_parsed) > > Please move the blank line to be between declarations and statements. > > Also please make nd pointer-to const. Ok. > > > + { > > In a Linux-style file opening braces do not belong on their own lines. > Ok. > > + /* Skip itself */ > > + if (i == nid) > > + continue; > > + > > + nd = &nodes[i]; > > + if (start < nd->start && nd->end < end) > > + { > > + printk(KERN_ERR > > + "NODE %u: (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr") intertwine > with NODE %u (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr")\n", > > s/intertwine/interleaves/ ? Yes, interleaves. I will fix it. > > > @@ -344,6 +374,12 @@ acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(const struct > acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma) > > nd->start = start; > > if (nd->end < end) > > nd->end = end; > > + > > + /* Check whether this range contains memory for other > nodes */ > > + if (!is_node_memory_continuous(node, nd->start, > > nd->end)) > { > > + bad_srat(); > > + return; > > + } > > I think this check would better come before nodes[] gets updated? Otoh > bad_srat() will zap everything anyway ... Yes, when I wrote this check, I considered when the check was failed, bad_srat would make numa initialization be failed. The values in nodes[] will not take any effect. So I didn't adjust the order. But if the bad_srat will be changed in future, and nodes[] will be used in fallback progress, this will take more effort to debug. In this case, I agree with you, I will update the order in next version. Thanks, Wei Chen > > Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |