Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Sanity check the e820 against the SRAT tableusing e820 map only

[Yinghai Lu]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> -	e820ram = max_pfn - absent_pages_in_range(0, max_pfn);
>> +	e820ram = max_pfn - (e820_hole_size(0, max_pfn<<PAGE_SHIFT)>>PAGE_SHIFT);
> 
> btw., it would be nice to have a debug check that prints a warning 
> if the SRAT does not cover all RAM, or if it covers RAM that is not 
> present in the e820 map. Such a warning might alert us to double 
> check all the PXM settings in the SRAT and could uncover more quirks 
> like the above ...

we trust e820 than SRAT mem entries.

so early_node_map already are result of in e820 range AND srat.  (the range in SRAT that is not in e820 is dumped)

just check srat table (without AND) with e820 will have some confusing. because SRAT would cover the hole below 4g that is not in E820.

YH


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/