From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37287) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dimlG-0002Yi-OA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:16:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dimlC-0001JJ-2j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:16:50 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58032) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dimlB-0001HS-TC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:16:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 16:16:41 -0300 From: Eduardo Habkost Message-ID: <20170818191641.GF3108@localhost.localdomain> References: <1502846811-32360-1-git-send-email-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170818212833-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170818212833-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] hw/acpi: Select an node with memory for mapping memory hole to List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Dou Liyang , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, rth@twiddle.net, imammedo@redhat.com On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:28:55PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:26:51AM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > > Currently, Using the fisrt node without memory on the machine makes > > QEMU unhappy. With this example command line: > > ... \ > > -m 1024M,slots=4,maxmem=32G \ > > -numa node,nodeid=0 \ > > -numa node,mem=1024M,nodeid=1 \ > > -numa node,nodeid=2 \ > > -numa node,nodeid=3 \ > > Guest reports "No NUMA configuration found" and the NUMA topology is > > wrong. > > > > This is because when QEMU builds ACPI SRAT, it regards node0 as the > > default node to deal with the memory hole(640K-1M). this means the > > node0 must have some memory(>1M), but, actually it can have no > > memory. > > > > Fix this problem by replace the node0 with the first node which has > > memory on it. Add a new function for each node. Also do some cleanup. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang > > This isn't a regression, is it? > If so I think it's safe to postpone this to 2.11. Agreed. I was already treating it as a candidate for 2.11 only. -- Eduardo