On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 6:30 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
<tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 09:47:58AM +0800, Huang Pei wrote:
> > Commit 61167ad5fecd("mm: pass nid to reserve_bootmem_region()") reveals
> > that reserved memblock regions have no valid node id set, just set it
> > right since loongson64 firmware makes it clear in memory layout info.
> >
> > This works around booting failure on 3A1000+ since commit 61167ad5fecd
> > ("mm: pass nid to reserve_bootmem_region()") under
> > CONFIG_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Huang Pei <huangpei@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/mips/loongson64/init.c | 2 ++
> > arch/mips/loongson64/numa.c | 2 ++
> > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/mips/loongson64/init.c b/arch/mips/loongson64/init.c
> > index f25caa6aa9d3..000ba91c0886 100644
> > --- a/arch/mips/loongson64/init.c
> > +++ b/arch/mips/loongson64/init.c
> > @@ -103,6 +103,8 @@ void __init szmem(unsigned int node)
> > if (loongson_sysconf.vgabios_addr)
> > memblock_reserve(virt_to_phys((void *)loongson_sysconf.vgabios_addr),
> > SZ_256K);
> > + /* set nid for reserved memory */
> > + memblock_set_node((u64)node << 44, (u64)(node+1) << 44, &memblock.reserved, node);
> > }
> >
> > #ifndef CONFIG_NUMA
> > diff --git a/arch/mips/loongson64/numa.c b/arch/mips/loongson64/numa.c
> > index 8f61e93c0c5b..6345e096c532 100644
> > --- a/arch/mips/loongson64/numa.c
> > +++ b/arch/mips/loongson64/numa.c
> > @@ -132,6 +132,8 @@ static void __init node_mem_init(unsigned int node)
> >
> > /* Reserve pfn range 0~node[0]->node_start_pfn */
> > memblock_reserve(0, PAGE_SIZE * start_pfn);
> > + /* set nid for reserved memory on node 0 */
> > + memblock_set_node(0, (u64)1 << 44, &memblock.reserved, 1);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.30.2
>
> applied to mips-fixes.
Oh, I'm sorry that I found a very stupid error in this patch. The
comment says set memory on node 0 but the code set it on node 1...
Huacai
>
> Thomas.
>
> --
> Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
> good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
>
