Re: [PATCH] x86: fix nodes_cover_memory

Ingo Molnar
2009-05-07T14:22:46Z

* Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:

> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 09:53:35AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > found one system that missed one entry for one node in SRAT, and that SRAT is not
> > rejected by nodes_cover_memory()
> >
> > it turns out that we can not use absent_page_in_range to calaulate
> > e820ram, bacause that will use early_node_map and that is AND result of
> > e820 and SRAT.
> >
>
> Correct, good spot.
>
> > revert back to use e820_hole_size instead.
> >
>
> I think the patch fixing this part of the problem is good, but the changelog
> could be better. It took me a while to figure out what the problem was and
> why this patch addressed it.
>
> How about something like the following?
>
> ====
> Sanity check the e820 against the SRAT table using only information from the e820 map
>
> node_cover_memory() sanity checks the SRAT table by ensuring that all
> PXMs cover the memory reported in the e820. However, when calculating
> the size of the holes in the e820, it uses the early_node_map[] which
> contains information taken from both SRAT and e820. If the SRAT is
> missing an entry, then it is not detected that the SRAT table is
> incorrect and missing entries.
>
> This patch uses the e820 map to calculate the holes instead of
> early_node_map[].
> ====
>
> As an aside, it strikes me as odd that we discard an entire SRAT because it
> is missing an entry in the e820. The impact may only be that the affinity
> for a range of memory is incorrect, but it does not necessarily mean that the
> entire table is incorrect. The intention of the code appears to be "if there is
> any error in the SRAT, it's best ignored" though so maybe it's best left alone.
>
> > also change that difference checking to 1M instead of 4G,
> > because e820ram, and pxmram are in pages.
> >
>
> While I agree with you, this should be a separate patch with its own
> changelog. Something like
>
> ===
> Allow 1MB of slack between the e820 map and SRAT, not 4GB
>
> It is expected that there be slight differences between the e820 map and
> the SRAT table and the intention was that 1MB of slack be allowed. The
> calculation comparing e820ram and pxmram assumes the units are bytes,
> when they are in fact pages. This means 4GB of slack is being allowed,
> not 1MB. This patch makes the correct comparison
> ===
>
> (1<<(20 - PAGE_SHIFT)) is a bit unreadable. At the very least, change the
> comment above from "Allow a bit of slack" to "Allow 1MB of slack" so the
> next reader knows what the intention of (1<<(20 - PAGE_SHIFT)) is.
>
> Thanks

thanks Mel!

Yinghai, mind resending the patch as two patches, with Mel's
changelogs in place and with Mel's Acked-by as well?

Thanks,

Ingo