On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 06:02:03PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > Given that, an alternative proposal that I think would work > > for you would be to add a 'placeholder' memory node definition > > in SRAT (so allow 0 size explicitly - might need a new SRAT > > entry to avoid backwards compat issues). > > Putting all the PCI/GI/... complexity aside, I'll just raise again that for > virtio-mem something simple like that might be helpful as well, IIUC. > > -numa node,nodeid=2 \ > ... > -device virtio-mem-pci,node=2,... \ > > All we need is the OS to prepare for an empty node that will get populated > with memory later.
That is all this is doing too, the NUMA relationship of the actual memory is desribed already by the PCI device since it is a BAR on the device. The only purpose is to get the empty nodes into Linux :( > So if that's what a "placeholder" node definition in srat could achieve as > well, even without all of the other acpi-generic-initiator stuff, that would > be great. Seems like there are two use quite similar cases.. virtio-mem is going to be calling the same family of kernel API I suspect :) Jason
