From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
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 node 0 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 cut out the 640K hole in the same way the PCI
4G hole does. Also do some cleanup.
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
index 98dd424..48525a1 100644
--- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
+++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
@@ -2318,6 +2318,9 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker)
(void *)tpm2_ptr, "TPM2", sizeof(*tpm2_ptr), 4, NULL, NULL);
}
+#define HOLE_640K_START (640 * 1024)
+#define HOLE_640K_END (1024 * 1024)
+
static void
build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
{
@@ -2373,17 +2376,30 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
next_base = 0;
numa_start = table_data->len;
- numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
- build_srat_memory(numamem, 0, 640 * 1024, 0, MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
- next_base = 1024 * 1024;
for (i = 1; i < pcms->numa_nodes + 1; ++i) {
mem_base = next_base;
mem_len = pcms->node_mem[i - 1];
- if (i == 1) {
- mem_len -= 1024 * 1024;
- }
next_base = mem_base + mem_len;
+ /* Cut out the 640K hole */
+ if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START &&
+ next_base > HOLE_640K_START) {
+ mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START;
+ if (mem_len > 0) {
+ numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
+ build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1,
+ MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
+ }
+
+ /* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */
+ if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) {
+ next_base = HOLE_640K_END;
+ continue;
+ }
+ mem_base = HOLE_640K_END;
+ mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END;
+ }
+
/* Cut out the ACPI_PCI hole */
if (mem_base <= pcms->below_4g_mem_size &&
next_base > pcms->below_4g_mem_size) {
@@ -2395,7 +2411,7 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
}
mem_base = 1ULL << 32;
mem_len = next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size;
- next_base += (1ULL << 32) - pcms->below_4g_mem_size;
+ next_base = mem_base + mem_len;
}
numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1,
--
2.5.5
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:04:26PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote:
> From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
>
> 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 node 0 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 cut out the 640K hole in the same way the PCI
> 4G hole does. Also do some cleanup.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> index 98dd424..48525a1 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> @@ -2318,6 +2318,9 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker)
> (void *)tpm2_ptr, "TPM2", sizeof(*tpm2_ptr), 4, NULL, NULL);
> }
>
> +#define HOLE_640K_START (640 * 1024)
> +#define HOLE_640K_END (1024 * 1024)
> +
> static void
> build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
> {
> @@ -2373,17 +2376,30 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
> next_base = 0;
> numa_start = table_data->len;
>
> - numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
> - build_srat_memory(numamem, 0, 640 * 1024, 0, MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
> - next_base = 1024 * 1024;
> for (i = 1; i < pcms->numa_nodes + 1; ++i) {
> mem_base = next_base;
> mem_len = pcms->node_mem[i - 1];
> - if (i == 1) {
> - mem_len -= 1024 * 1024;
> - }
> next_base = mem_base + mem_len;
>
> + /* Cut out the 640K hole */
> + if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START &&
> + next_base > HOLE_640K_START) {
> + mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START;
> + if (mem_len > 0) {
> + numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
> + build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1,
> + MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
> + }
> +
> + /* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */
> + if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) {
> + next_base = HOLE_640K_END;
> + continue;
> + }
> + mem_base = HOLE_640K_END;
> + mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END;
> + }
> +
> /* Cut out the ACPI_PCI hole */
> if (mem_base <= pcms->below_4g_mem_size &&
> next_base > pcms->below_4g_mem_size) {
> @@ -2395,7 +2411,7 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
> }
> mem_base = 1ULL << 32;
> mem_len = next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size;
> - next_base += (1ULL << 32) - pcms->below_4g_mem_size;
> + next_base = mem_base + mem_len;
Is this extra change intentional?
I find the code more readable with it, but it should go in a
separate patch because it is unrelated to the bug fix.
--
Eduardo
Hi, Eduardo
At 09/01/2017 05:36 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:04:26PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote:
>> From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
>>
>> 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 node 0 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 cut out the 640K hole in the same way the PCI
>> 4G hole does. Also do some cleanup.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
>> index 98dd424..48525a1 100644
>> --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
>> +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
>> @@ -2318,6 +2318,9 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker)
>> (void *)tpm2_ptr, "TPM2", sizeof(*tpm2_ptr), 4, NULL, NULL);
>> }
>>
>> +#define HOLE_640K_START (640 * 1024)
>> +#define HOLE_640K_END (1024 * 1024)
>> +
>> static void
>> build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
>> {
>> @@ -2373,17 +2376,30 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
>> next_base = 0;
>> numa_start = table_data->len;
>>
>> - numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
>> - build_srat_memory(numamem, 0, 640 * 1024, 0, MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
>> - next_base = 1024 * 1024;
>> for (i = 1; i < pcms->numa_nodes + 1; ++i) {
>> mem_base = next_base;
>> mem_len = pcms->node_mem[i - 1];
>> - if (i == 1) {
>> - mem_len -= 1024 * 1024;
>> - }
>> next_base = mem_base + mem_len;
>>
>> + /* Cut out the 640K hole */
>> + if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START &&
>> + next_base > HOLE_640K_START) {
>> + mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START;
>> + if (mem_len > 0) {
>> + numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
>> + build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1,
>> + MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */
>> + if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) {
>> + next_base = HOLE_640K_END;
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> + mem_base = HOLE_640K_END;
>> + mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END;
>> + }
>> +
>> /* Cut out the ACPI_PCI hole */
>> if (mem_base <= pcms->below_4g_mem_size &&
>> next_base > pcms->below_4g_mem_size) {
>> @@ -2395,7 +2411,7 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
>> }
>> mem_base = 1ULL << 32;
>> mem_len = next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size;
>> - next_base += (1ULL << 32) - pcms->below_4g_mem_size;
>> + next_base = mem_base + mem_len;
>
> Is this extra change intentional?
>
Yes, it is, Just for readability. :-)
> I find the code more readable with it, but it should go in a
> separate patch because it is unrelated to the bug fix.
>
Indeed, I will split it out.
Thanks,
dou.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:04:26 +0800
Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
>
> 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 node 0 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 cut out the 640K hole in the same way the PCI
> 4G hole does. Also do some cleanup.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> index 98dd424..48525a1 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> @@ -2318,6 +2318,9 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker)
> (void *)tpm2_ptr, "TPM2", sizeof(*tpm2_ptr), 4, NULL, NULL);
> }
>
> +#define HOLE_640K_START (640 * 1024)
> +#define HOLE_640K_END (1024 * 1024)
> +
> static void
> build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
> {
> @@ -2373,17 +2376,30 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
> next_base = 0;
> numa_start = table_data->len;
>
> - numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
> - build_srat_memory(numamem, 0, 640 * 1024, 0, MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
> - next_base = 1024 * 1024;
> for (i = 1; i < pcms->numa_nodes + 1; ++i) {
> mem_base = next_base;
> mem_len = pcms->node_mem[i - 1];
> - if (i == 1) {
> - mem_len -= 1024 * 1024;
> - }
> next_base = mem_base + mem_len;
>
> + /* Cut out the 640K hole */
> + if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START &&
> + next_base > HOLE_640K_START) {
> + mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START;
> + if (mem_len > 0) {
> + numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
> + build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1,
> + MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
> + }
> +
> + /* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */
> + if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) {
> + next_base = HOLE_640K_END;
Is this assignment really necessary?
it seems that next_base will be set at the start of the loop.
> + continue;
> + }
> + mem_base = HOLE_640K_END;
> + mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END;
> + }
> +
> /* Cut out the ACPI_PCI hole */
> if (mem_base <= pcms->below_4g_mem_size &&
> next_base > pcms->below_4g_mem_size) {
> @@ -2395,7 +2411,7 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
> }
> mem_base = 1ULL << 32;
> mem_len = next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size;
> - next_base += (1ULL << 32) - pcms->below_4g_mem_size;
> + next_base = mem_base + mem_len;
> }
> numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
> build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1,
At 09/04/2017 05:39 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:04:26 +0800
> Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
>>
>> 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 node 0 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 cut out the 640K hole in the same way the PCI
>> 4G hole does. Also do some cleanup.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
>> index 98dd424..48525a1 100644
>> --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
>> +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
>> @@ -2318,6 +2318,9 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker)
>> (void *)tpm2_ptr, "TPM2", sizeof(*tpm2_ptr), 4, NULL, NULL);
>> }
>>
>> +#define HOLE_640K_START (640 * 1024)
>> +#define HOLE_640K_END (1024 * 1024)
>> +
>> static void
>> build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
>> {
>> @@ -2373,17 +2376,30 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
>> next_base = 0;
>> numa_start = table_data->len;
>>
>> - numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
>> - build_srat_memory(numamem, 0, 640 * 1024, 0, MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
>> - next_base = 1024 * 1024;
>> for (i = 1; i < pcms->numa_nodes + 1; ++i) {
>> mem_base = next_base;
>> mem_len = pcms->node_mem[i - 1];
>> - if (i == 1) {
>> - mem_len -= 1024 * 1024;
>> - }
>> next_base = mem_base + mem_len;
>>
>> + /* Cut out the 640K hole */
>> + if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START &&
>> + next_base > HOLE_640K_START) {
>> + mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START;
>> + if (mem_len > 0) {
>> + numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
>> + build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1,
>> + MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */
>> + if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) {
>> + next_base = HOLE_640K_END;
> Is this assignment really necessary?
>
It is necessary, because we set mem_base to next_base before setting
next_base;
But, I can refine it:
MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
}
+ mem_base = HOLE_640K_END;
/* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */
if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) {
- next_base = HOLE_640K_END;
continue;
}
- mem_base = HOLE_640K_END;
mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END;
}
Is it?
Thanks,
dou.
> it seems that next_base will be set at the start of the loop.
>
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> + mem_base = HOLE_640K_END;
>> + mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END;
>> + }
>> +
>> /* Cut out the ACPI_PCI hole */
>> if (mem_base <= pcms->below_4g_mem_size &&
>> next_base > pcms->below_4g_mem_size) {
>> @@ -2395,7 +2411,7 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
>> }
>> mem_base = 1ULL << 32;
>> mem_len = next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size;
>> - next_base += (1ULL << 32) - pcms->below_4g_mem_size;
>> + next_base = mem_base + mem_len;
>> }
>> numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
>> build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1,
>
>
>
>
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 18:16:31 +0800
Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> At 09/04/2017 05:39 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:04:26 +0800
> > Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> 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 node 0 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 cut out the 640K hole in the same way the PCI
> >> 4G hole does. Also do some cleanup.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> >> ---
> >> hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> >> index 98dd424..48525a1 100644
> >> --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> >> +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> >> @@ -2318,6 +2318,9 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker)
> >> (void *)tpm2_ptr, "TPM2", sizeof(*tpm2_ptr), 4, NULL, NULL);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +#define HOLE_640K_START (640 * 1024)
> >> +#define HOLE_640K_END (1024 * 1024)
> >> +
> >> static void
> >> build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
> >> {
> >> @@ -2373,17 +2376,30 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
> >> next_base = 0;
> >> numa_start = table_data->len;
> >>
> >> - numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
> >> - build_srat_memory(numamem, 0, 640 * 1024, 0, MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
> >> - next_base = 1024 * 1024;
> >> for (i = 1; i < pcms->numa_nodes + 1; ++i) {
> >> mem_base = next_base;
> >> mem_len = pcms->node_mem[i - 1];
> >> - if (i == 1) {
> >> - mem_len -= 1024 * 1024;
> >> - }
> >> next_base = mem_base + mem_len;
> >>
> >> + /* Cut out the 640K hole */
> >> + if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START &&
> >> + next_base > HOLE_640K_START) {
> >> + mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START;
> >> + if (mem_len > 0) {
> >> + numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
> >> + build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1,
> >> + MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */
> >> + if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) {
> >> + next_base = HOLE_640K_END;
> > Is this assignment really necessary?
> >
>
> It is necessary, because we set mem_base to next_base before setting
> next_base;
>
> But, I can refine it:
>
> MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
> }
>
> + mem_base = HOLE_640K_END;
> /* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */
> if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) {
> - next_base = HOLE_640K_END;
> continue;
> }
> - mem_base = HOLE_640K_END;
> mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END;
> }
>
> Is it?
I was wrong, so just leave it as it is now.
>
> Thanks,
> dou.
>
> > it seems that next_base will be set at the start of the loop.
> >
>
>
> >> + continue;
> >> + }
> >> + mem_base = HOLE_640K_END;
> >> + mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> /* Cut out the ACPI_PCI hole */
> >> if (mem_base <= pcms->below_4g_mem_size &&
> >> next_base > pcms->below_4g_mem_size) {
> >> @@ -2395,7 +2411,7 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine)
> >> }
> >> mem_base = 1ULL << 32;
> >> mem_len = next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size;
> >> - next_base += (1ULL << 32) - pcms->below_4g_mem_size;
> >> + next_base = mem_base + mem_len;
> >> }
> >> numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
> >> build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1,
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Hi Igor,
At 09/04/2017 07:11 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
[...]
>>>> + if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START &&
>>>> + next_base > HOLE_640K_START) {
>>>> + mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START;
>>>> + if (mem_len > 0) {
>>>> + numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem);
>>>> + build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1,
>>>> + MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */
>>>> + if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) {
>>>> + next_base = HOLE_640K_END;
>>> Is this assignment really necessary?
>>>
>>
>> It is necessary, because we set mem_base to next_base before setting
>> next_base;
>>
>> But, I can refine it:
>>
>> MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
>> }
>>
>> + mem_base = HOLE_640K_END;
>> /* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */
>> if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) {
>> - next_base = HOLE_640K_END;
>> continue;
>> }
>> - mem_base = HOLE_640K_END;
>> mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END;
>> }
>>
>> Is it?
> I was wrong, so just leave it as it is now.
>
OK, I see.
Thanks,
dou.
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.