On 02/05/2017 22:09, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 06:29:55PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> [...]
>> diff --git a/numa.c b/numa.c
>> index 6fc2393..750fd95 100644
>> --- a/numa.c
>> +++ b/numa.c
>> @@ -294,6 +294,42 @@ static void validate_numa_cpus(void)
>> g_free(seen_cpus);
>> }
>>
>> +void numa_legacy_auto_assign_ram(MachineClass *mc, NodeInfo *nodes,
>> + int nb_nodes, ram_addr_t size)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> + uint64_t usedmem = 0;
>> +
>> + /* Align each node according to the alignment
>> + * requirements of the machine class
>> + */
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < nb_nodes - 1; i++) {
>> + nodes[i].node_mem = (size / nb_nodes) &
>> + ~((1 << mc->numa_mem_align_shift) - 1);
>> + usedmem += nodes[i].node_mem;
>> + }
>> + nodes[i].node_mem = size - usedmem;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void numa_default_auto_assign_ram(MachineClass *mc, NodeInfo *nodes,
>> + int nb_nodes, ram_addr_t size)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> + uint64_t usedmem = 0, node_mem;
>> + uint64_t granularity = size / nb_nodes;
>> + uint64_t propagate = 0;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < nb_nodes - 1; i++) {
>> + node_mem = (granularity + propagate) &
>> + ~((1 << mc->numa_mem_align_shift) - 1);
>> + propagate = granularity + propagate - node_mem;
>> + nodes[i].node_mem = node_mem;
>> + usedmem += node_mem;
>> + }
>> + nodes[i].node_mem = ram_size - usedmem;
>
> I believe you meant 'size - usedmem' here.
>
> I can fix this while applying the patch, if that's OK. The rest
> of the patch looks good to me.
Yes, you're right. You can fix this and apply.
Thanks,
Laurent
