Hi Stefano,
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefano Stabellini
> Sent: 2021年8月31日 9:17
> To: Wei Chen
> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; sstabell...@kernel.org; jul...@xen.org;
> jbeul...@suse.com; Bertrand Marquis
> Subject: Re: [XEN RFC PATCH 31/40] xen/x86: move nodes_cover_memory to
> common
>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021, Wei Chen wrote:
> > Not only ACPU NUMA, but also Arm device tree based NUMA
> > will use nodes_cover_memory to do sanity check. So we move
> > this function from arch/x86 to common.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Chen
> > ---
> > xen/arch/x86/srat.c| 40
> > xen/common/numa.c | 40
> > xen/include/xen/numa.h | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/srat.c b/xen/arch/x86/srat.c
> > index dd3aa30843..dcebc7adec 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/srat.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/srat.c
> > @@ -308,46 +308,6 @@ acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(const struct
> acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
> > num_node_memblks++;
> > }
> >
> > -/* Sanity check to catch more bad SRATs (they are amazingly common).
> > - Make sure the PXMs cover all memory. */
> > -static int __init nodes_cover_memory(void)
> > -{
> > - int i;
> > - uint32_t nr_banks = arch_meminfo_get_nr_bank();
> > -
> > - for (i = 0; i < nr_banks; i++) {
> > - int j, found;
> > - unsigned long long start, end;
> > -
> > - if (arch_meminfo_get_ram_bank_range(i, , )) {
> > - continue;
> > - }
> > -
> > - do {
> > - found = 0;
> > - for_each_node_mask(j, memory_nodes_parsed)
> > - if (start < nodes[j].end
> > - && end > nodes[j].start) {
> > - if (start >= nodes[j].start) {
> > - start = nodes[j].end;
> > - found = 1;
> > - }
> > - if (end <= nodes[j].end) {
> > - end = nodes[j].start;
> > - found = 1;
> > - }
> > - }
> > - } while (found && start < end);
> > -
> > - if (start < end) {
> > - printk(KERN_ERR "SRAT: No PXM for e820 range: "
> > - "%016Lx - %016Lx\n", start, end);
> > - return 0;
> > - }
> > - }
> > - return 1;
> > -}
> > -
> > void __init acpi_numa_arch_fixup(void) {}
> >
> > static uint64_t __initdata srat_region_mask;
> > diff --git a/xen/common/numa.c b/xen/common/numa.c
> > index 79ab250543..74960885a6 100644
> > --- a/xen/common/numa.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/numa.c
> > @@ -193,6 +193,46 @@ void __init cutoff_node(int i, u64 start, u64 end)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +/* Sanity check to catch more bad SRATs (they are amazingly common).
> > + Make sure the PXMs cover all memory. */
> > +int __init nodes_cover_memory(void)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > + uint32_t nr_banks = arch_meminfo_get_nr_bank();
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < nr_banks; i++) {
> > + int j, found;
> > + unsigned long long start, end;
> > +
> > + if (arch_meminfo_get_ram_bank_range(i, , )) {
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > +
> > + do {
> > + found = 0;
> > + for_each_node_mask(j, memory_nodes_parsed)
> > + if (start < nodes[j].end
> > + && end > nodes[j].start) {
> > + if (start >= nodes[j].start) {
> > + start = nodes[j].end;
> > + found = 1;
> > + }
> > + if (end <= nodes[j].end) {
> > + end = nodes[j].start;
> > + found = 1;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + } while (found && start < end);
> > +
> > + if (start < end) {
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "SRAT: No PXM for e820 range: "
> > + "%016Lx - %016Lx\n", start, end);
>
> I don't know if you are already doing this in a later patch but the
> message shouldn't say e820 as it doesn't exist on all architecture.
> Maybe "for address range" or "for memory range" would suffice.
>
> Normally we don't do change together with code movement but in this case
> I think it would be OK.
OK, I will do it in next version.
