Re: [PATCH v6 1/7] x86/numa: Fix SRAT lookup of CFMWS ranges with numa_fill_memblks()

[Robert Richter]

On 30.04.24 09:16:56, Alison Schofield wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:21:54AM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> > For configurations that have the kconfig option NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO
> > disabled numa_fill_memblks() only returns with NUMA_NO_MEMBLK (-1).
> > SRAT lookup fails then because an existing SRAT memory range cannot be
> > found for a CFMWS address range. This causes the addition of a
> > duplicate numa_memblk with a different node id and a subsequent page
> > fault and kernel crash during boot.
> > 
> > Fix this by making numa_fill_memblks() always available regardless of
> > NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO.
> > 
> > The fix also removes numa_fill_memblks() from sparsemem.h using
> > __weak.
> > 
> > From Dan:
> > 
> > """
> > It just feels like numa_fill_memblks() has absolutely no business being
> > defined in arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h.
> > 
> > The only use for numa_fill_memblks() is to arrange for NUMA nodes to be
> > applied to memory ranges hot-onlined by the CXL driver.
> > 
> > It belongs right next to numa_add_memblk(), and I suspect
> > arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h was only chosen to avoid figuring out
> > what to do about the fact that linux/numa.h does not include asm/numa.h
> > and that all implementations either provide numa_add_memblk() or select
> > the generic implementation.
> > 
> > So I would prefer that this do the proper fix and get
> > numa_fill_memblks() completely out of the sparsemem.h path.
> > 
> > Something like the following which boots for me.
> > """
> > 
> > Note that the issue was initially introduced with [1]. But since
> > phys_to_target_node() was originally used that returned the valid node
> > 0, an additional numa_memblk was not added. Though, the node id was
> > wrong too, a message is seen then in the logs:
> > 
> >  kernel/numa.c:  pr_info_once("Unknown target node for memory at 0x%llx, assuming node 0\n",
> > 
> > [1] commit fd49f99c1809 ("ACPI: NUMA: Add a node and memblk for each
> >     CFMWS not in SRAT")
> > 
> 
> For the commit log above -
> Perhaps the Dan quote can be reduced to a note about the implementation
> choice. Folks can look up the Lore thread if history is needed.
> 
> For the code -
> Reviewed-by: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@xxxxxxxxx>

Adjusted description, thanks.

-Robert