Re: [PATCH 08/37] xen/x86: add detection of discontinous node memory range

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 19.01.2022 08:33, Wei Chen wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: 2022年1月19日 0:13
>>
>> 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 ...

Taking just this part of your reply (the issue continues later), may I
ask that you use a consistent term throughout this single patch? Mixing
"interlace" and "interleave" like you do may make people wonder whether
the two are intended to express slightly different aspects. Personally,
as per my suggestion, I'd prefer "interleave", but I'm not a native
speaker.

Jan