Hi Alexey, Prior to the $SUBJECT commit, we could present memoryless node0s to guests. Now, we indicate that we don't have the requisite 128M for the RMA if node 0 has no memory. Note that a memoryless node0 is possible under PowerVM (but not predictably present) so I was hoping to use KVM to test relevant fixes for memoryless nodes.
I think this change is a misinterpretation of the PAPR standard, though. Yes, the RMA must be in the first block of memory, but that isn't necessarily on node 0. The topology of a PAPR-compliant guest does not require a node 0 (and in fact, under PowerVM, Linux doesn't actually require node 0 either, but it would under KVM). Thoughts? I suppose it's fine to say that node 0 must be sufficiently populated under KVM -- there's not really a reason to not have memory on a given node (except maybe ballooning). I can keep the commit reverted locally for testing purposes. Just wanted to see if the semantic change was intentional. Thanks, Nish
