On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 01:42:12PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> > static int __init acpi_parse_cfmws(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
> > void *arg, const unsigned long table_end)
> > {
> > @@ -545,6 +569,15 @@ int __init acpi_numa_init(void)
> > * Initialize a fake_pxm as the first available PXM to emulate.
> > */
> > + /* Align memblock size to CFMW regions if possible */
> > + acpi_table_parse_cedt(ACPI_CEDT_TYPE_CFMWS, acpi_align_cfmws, NULL);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Nodes start populating with blocks after this, so probe the max
> > + * block size to prevent it from changing in the future.
> > + */
> > + memory_block_probe_max_size();
> > +
>
> This looks odd. Why shouldn't we allow someone else to suggest/advise an
> even smaller "max size" ? I'd drop that.
>
Ah, my reading of the numa_add_memblk path was mistaken. I thought the
hotplug blocks would start being created immediately after this in the
acpi_parse_cfmws path - but memblk != memory_block x_x.
Will drop along with other recommended updates and submit v4.
~Gregory
