On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 01:45:12PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > In v6.7.0-rc1~86 I've tried to fix a problem where we were not > detecting NUMA nodes properly because we misused behaviour of a > libnuma API and as it turned out the behaviour was correct for > hosts with 64 CPUs in one NUMA node. So I changed the code to use > nodemask_isset(&numa_all_nodes, ..) instead and it fixed the > problem on such hosts. However, what I did not realize is that > numa_all_nodes does not reflect all NUMA nodes visible to > userspace, it contains only those nodes that the process > (libvirtd) an allocate memory from, which can be only a subset of > all NUMA nodes. The bitmask that contains all NUMA nodes visible > to userspace and which one I should have used is: numa_nodes_ptr. > For curious ones: > > https://github.com/numactl/numactl/commit/4a22f2238234155e11e3e2717c011864722b767b > > And as I was fixing virNumaGetNodeCPUs() I came to realize that > we already have a function that wraps the correct bitmask: > virNumaNodeIsAvailable(). > > Fixes: 24d7d85208f812a45686b32a0561cc9c5c9a49c9 > Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876956 > Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > src/util/virnuma.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
