On 16.12.2022 20:24, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 13/12/2022 11:36 am, Jan Beulich wrote: >> RFC: With small enough a NUMA hash shift it would still be possible to >> hit an SRAT hole, despite mfn_valid() passing. Hence, like was the >> original plan, it may still be necessary to relax the checking in >> phys_to_nid() (or its designated replacements). At which point the >> value of this change here would shrink to merely reducing the >> chance of unintentionally doing NUMA_NO_NODE allocations. > > Why does the NUMA shift matter? Can't this occur for badly constructed > SRAT tables too?
Well, the NUMA hash shift is computed from the SRAT table entries, so often "badly constructed" => "too small shift". > Nevertheless, this is a clear improvement over what's currently in tree, > so I'm going to commit it to try and unblock OSSTest. The tree has been > blocked for too long. Further adjustments can come in due course. Thanks. And I see it has unblocked the tree. Jan
