[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
On 02.06.2022 06:10, Wei Chen wrote: > 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? The former or [0000000080000000-00000008d7ffffff]. Parentheses stand for exclusive boundaries, while square brackets stand for inclusive ones. Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |