[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] xen/x86: add detection of memory interleaves for different nodes
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2022 12:10:19 +0800
- Arc-authentication-results: i=2; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 63.35.35.123) smtp.rcpttodomain=lists.xenproject.org smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass (p=none sp=none pct=100) action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=armh.onmicrosoft.com; arc=pass (0 oda=1 ltdi=1 spf=[1,1,smtp.mailfrom=arm.com] dkim=[1,1,header.d=arm.com] dmarc=[1,1,header.from=arm.com])
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass header.d=arm.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=RMrJHla0pmJ3TZNCdSIdkv1KpR1wdQRFa5FSC1mu+4c=; b=GuWP+XZNRm0qB1UQGSSZ233LWNY6Ss7P0grHrIunJ+IzI5Rr440QSiQOWWeXkyBnoPRj/zNkGFBdAjUlNEd/UWPFzL4j/XzfNgU8hfyztfE7/7b2wamH8VJmEvyKOL0dpftvYEnH8ox2dJa3ZC2J98YOndXcHEEpwIrVvNdobCsbiUP6UPx3jW9o98KcXCJmFad/35Ko/9EbQUXDABibMibvAA6HFG5bivNcf4NRQNjjocZFyR7fDm5YrLCESYaXudL1akEs4/aH4IpJ1YduYLvzbFaIvsXohwmZi9vH/WsdzaBJr0jG2O5V57iLZS22e3bhLgBQNsEO39UkT1wHrQ==
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=RMrJHla0pmJ3TZNCdSIdkv1KpR1wdQRFa5FSC1mu+4c=; b=FFG5LRfGiKC2WiFERRedf87mpJHlE+XPqSkRPhcTGo8i6+0MCAWhtgruGMhoxl3b+foYK9ktOx1MR+f6CDdDLpiFWoVECUlttHHClpR+o2XiwQCFe3B+MFH0yxGIvJ3s6Te3Zw4ouqJJ+n9Dv4Gpjl612svRNptrcyijSR0MKyTgDTbq85cIdAUX0Haf5ACYXN6/epqm1WrJoKzxDu0AvoRDIVx7eE+Cvotx7xXFtCmI+udu9skkoP8ucBnrhtp9oJg9oRVC93RrW9O5Xvxn9zUUrO0zOKilH3ha88PHo+ySCE8MaDPtINd+2LhXP5dcil71A7GRsc/cgZYekmV6XQ==
- Arc-seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=pass; b=ktUSISaclaDrZ+GxiIo0w+hDS/kvsySeZNFD0B4cxnq/4jYc5+TpHZdI6ryQovOrSW9gePJ2WRKHVhzMOsvnYE3mJwwXySSojB0pnaVMByTuszlsIg7laL/gWjgdgMTtyBJ/yAkf1lTl7Zy8XjAXj7QnHIDAwSlYs0YPicumh0nqTIGgvBLIJAXd1+7saMjB0XUMYrC146bQ9oG/Sv66cYRtM5REvjGiP5B/wAO7MvbE+otfxXSgVe650KIdzobwjP2y4FQyhTZQ/w83SD388pol7UsdMXIiwqZBwCqipEV0a/lz0mmfAAY0KOUcUStwY2FSFNg3FsxolmBayWvg2A==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=K+DN5D968g6veNblwwlvJkvB5QiVyJo/AHBY22deuNp6hxquW6XfDwBifzvJCmklbx7jhcXp1FRfqpfQ2ftc88vA0OzXYqVvB0Ch2TYWGBMExNg0nnq3/jFGrkAg/feib2sXegU/mFd8vQeFjxOZQW8SrUW+ddXSMUTVCMUQdcxdUKrVMa+gSml/BL1xrYSn7HWT7OcaCNYPDHcNO4RHtNFZO7iIxFF08Y/zMZlfjYlsv6d6JsCMKEfpCHfHye+V6o+TBh8ERLBp9HTScntKV0bEDIYgeoxnLx4VSN/rommjnP94MY0aqf22tfJ7w95hNhvAM26HGiEf53MiODpLLA==
- Authentication-results-original: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
- Cc: nd@xxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Jiamei Xie <jiamei.xie@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 04:11:02 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
- Nodisclaimer: true
- Original-authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
Hi Jan,
On 2022/5/31 21:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.05.2022 08:25, Wei Chen wrote:
@@ -119,20 +125,45 @@ int valid_numa_range(paddr_t start, paddr_t end, nodeid_t
node)
return 0;
To limit indentation depth, on of the two sides of the conditional can
be moved out, by omitting the unnecessary "else". To reduce the diff
it may be worthwhile to invert the if() condition, allowing the (then
implicit) "else" case to remain (almost) unchanged from the original.
- } else {
+ }
+
+ case INTERLEAVE:
+ {
printk(KERN_ERR
- "SRAT: PXM %u (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr") overlaps with PXM %u
(%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr")\n",
- pxm, start, end, node_to_pxm(memblk_nodeid[i]),
+ "SRAT： PXM %u: (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr") interleaves with PXM %u memblk
(%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr")\n",
+ node, nd_start, nd_end, node_to_pxm(memblk_nodeid[i]),
Hmm, you have PXM in the log message text, but you still pass "node" as
first argument.
Since you're touching all these messages, could I ask you to convert
all ranges to proper mathematical interval representation? I.e.
[start,end) here aiui as the end addresses look to be non-inclusive.
Sorry, I want to confirm with you about this comment again. Now the
messages look like:
(XEN) NUMA： PXM 0: (0000000080000000-00000008d8000000) interleaves...
So I want to know, is it [0000000080000000-00000008d8000000) or
(0000000080000000-00000008d7ffffff) addressed your comment?
Literally, I think it's case#1?
Thanks,
Wei Chen
|
