On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 05:39:10PM +0800, Yuquan Wang wrote:
> The absence of SRAT would cause the fake_pxm to be -1 and increment
> to 0, then send to acpi_parse_cfmws(). If there exists CXL memory
> ranges that are defined in the CFMWS and not already defined in the
> SRAT, the new node (node0) for the CXL memory would be invalid, as
> node0 is already in "used".
If no SRAT or bad SRAT, then all memory is at node:0, and first fake
node for CFMWs should start at 1. Right?
If so, might it be safest to always start the the CFMWS fake nodes at
at a minimum of node[1]. Maybe srat_disabled() can be used to decide.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yuquan Wang <wangyuquan1236@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c
> index 00ac0d7bb8c9..eb8628e217fa 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c
> @@ -646,6 +646,9 @@ int __init acpi_numa_init(void)
> if (node_to_pxm_map[i] > fake_pxm)
> fake_pxm = node_to_pxm_map[i];
> }
> + if (fake_pxm == PXM_INVAL)
> + pr_warn("Failed to find the next unused PXM value for CFMWs\n");
> +
How come it is sufficient to just warn?
As per my comment above, can we adjust?
> last_real_pxm = fake_pxm;
> fake_pxm++;
> acpi_table_parse_cedt(ACPI_CEDT_TYPE_CFMWS, acpi_parse_cfmws,
> --
> 2.34.1
>
