On 12.02.21 11:11, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 12-02-21 10:56:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 12.02.21 10:55, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 08.02.21 12:08, Mike Rapoport wrote:
[...]
@@ -6519,8 +6581,19 @@ void __init get_pfn_range_for_nid(unsigned int nid,
*end_pfn = max(*end_pfn, this_end_pfn);
}
- if (*start_pfn == -1UL)
+ if (*start_pfn == -1UL) {
*start_pfn = 0;
+ return;
+ }
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
+ /*
+ * Sections in the memory map may not match actual populated
+ * memory, extend the node span to cover the entire section.
+ */
+ *start_pfn = round_down(*start_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
+ *end_pfn = round_up(*end_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
Does that mean that we might create overlapping zones when one node
s/overlapping zones/overlapping nodes/
I didn't get to review the patch yet. Just wanted to note that we can
interleave nodes/zone. Or what kind of concern do you have in mind?
I know that we can have it after boot, when hotplugging memory. How
about during boot?
For example, which node will a PFN then actually be assigned to?
I was just wondering if this might result in issues - if that can
already happen, then it's just fine I guess.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
