Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] xen/x86: add detection of memory interleaves for different nodes

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 02.06.2022 06:10, Wei Chen wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
> On 2022/5/31 21:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 23.05.2022 08:25, Wei Chen wrote:
>>> @@ -119,20 +125,45 @@ int valid_numa_range(paddr_t start, paddr_t end, 
>>> nodeid_t node)
>>>     return 0;
> 
>>
>> To limit indentation depth, on of the two sides of the conditional can
>> be moved out, by omitting the unnecessary "else". To reduce the diff
>> it may be worthwhile to invert the if() condition, allowing the (then
>> implicit) "else" case to remain (almost) unchanged from the original.
>>
>>> -   } else {
>>> +   }
>>> +
>>> +   case INTERLEAVE:
>>> +   {
>>>             printk(KERN_ERR
>>> -                  "SRAT: PXM %u (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr") overlaps with 
>>> PXM %u (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr")\n",
>>> -                  pxm, start, end, node_to_pxm(memblk_nodeid[i]),
>>> +                  "SRAT： PXM %u: (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr") interleaves 
>>> with PXM %u memblk (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr")\n",
>>> +                  node, nd_start, nd_end, node_to_pxm(memblk_nodeid[i]),
>>
>> Hmm, you have PXM in the log message text, but you still pass "node" as
>> first argument.
>>
>> Since you're touching all these messages, could I ask you to convert
>> all ranges to proper mathematical interval representation? I.e.
>> [start,end) here aiui as the end addresses look to be non-inclusive.
>>
> 
> Sorry, I want to confirm with you about this comment again. Now the 
> messages look like:
> (XEN) NUMA： PXM 0: (0000000080000000-00000008d8000000) interleaves...
> 
> So I want to know, is it [0000000080000000-00000008d8000000) or
> (0000000080000000-00000008d7ffffff) addressed your comment?
> Literally, I think it's case#1?

The former or [0000000080000000-00000008d7ffffff]. Parentheses stand for
exclusive boundaries, while square brackets stand for inclusive ones.

Jan