From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 330A4D6EBEE for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:44:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Message-ID:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=qAX4jY2wr5xwll57yg6MHE09Xwx4UN15AG4dAwUKs5I=; b=u8Os0Q6rNRjslH3GuFj1utnfqU T55Q4s9xh76UoLSYa2WQOnuCaqZhA0M1CisMelu2o6uXxvdHaAfIz9D86OvxzaaH08UbYKus+nDmK 2NbQpnM45L2yiu7P5NlXDaynbcQXrtx1xh155QuWAotOjx9vp3lJ1vOBYqyyOhJlm2xKa0soB5yU/ b7PGDPDL1+X1M4DMaeV3kl9zkfgHZGghn+tarw3B7NmuADlYwCk0ZnUojP21qXC69OmkRib87yuVK bBIgTXQV/IDeKVcoURkYNl2FAwvf3KfmGzHol9l3xsHydQ0nd1O9k1zkaTIWywIyQawHobcGojGpr pOFh3rJg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tGwbZ-0000000HDct-0ui6; Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:44:01 +0000 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tGwaa-0000000HDVr-3rpv for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:43:02 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E875C479D; Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:42:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81501C4CECF; Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:42:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1732869779; bh=Ym0SI+xT22Jv1VQDGHdVIS9SkKv1ncTsD1r7VAkDhlg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VLtFe4EcqNg44BIJ7tT2mz7OirCn7zFZs03fmrbhLJSZ7iv2otSL12SGP4MgbITGw UhVqAsT3RvlQ6UwUmaqX88OFr2E7rRNCGDOBFOq8IZVSEuSY1M1Jkv8PVW98ayfMyw mwS2KxrxX0t8xrQ+MMq1KGxKyEd8JhP2BwEjVFtexPrkFk/AnLI5keNSu63cFYAkJs f0JIbcSXQ3KnRTJiLdtUcdftj1zFKi0bgeu0cSxChU0L1jJhJR7iJVHRN/uBilBbLY qOH5qtDZUH92n99fPTLj1UwrYCp5L71YHfSde8rs2ts/zaCy4WR4VYhabI1LRZOLLe 7PNIcoCyVsOsA== Received: from [37.169.128.218] (helo=wait-a-minute.misterjones.org) by disco-boy.misterjones.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1tGwaW-00GhG0-RA; Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:42:57 +0000 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:42:55 +0000 Message-ID: <87v7w6sa5s.wl-maz@kernel.org> From: Marc Zyngier To: Mike Rapoport Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Zi Yan , Dan Williams , David Hildenbrand , Andrew Morton , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch_numa: Restore nid checks before registering a memblock with a node In-Reply-To: References: <20241127193000.3702637-1-maz@kernel.org> <87y113s3lt.wl-maz@kernel.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/29.4 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 37.169.128.218 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rppt@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, ziy@nvidia.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, david@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, stable@vger.kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: maz@kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on disco-boy.misterjones.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20241129_004301_042947_E3B63C96 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 29.45 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:24:16 +0000, Mike Rapoport 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 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. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.