On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:13:32AM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > 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? Yes. > > 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? > Sure. Thanks for your suggestion. > > > > last_real_pxm = fake_pxm; > > fake_pxm++; > > acpi_table_parse_cedt(ACPI_CEDT_TYPE_CFMWS, acpi_parse_cfmws, > > -- > > 2.34.1 > >