On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 02:50:55PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 15:13:02 +0800
Tao Xu <address@hidden> wrote:
Add MachineClass::auto_enable_numa field. When it is true, a NUMA node
is expected to be created implicitly.
Acked-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <address@hidden>
Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: Tao Xu <address@hidden>
[...]
+ mc->auto_enable_numa = true;
this will always create a numa node (that will affect not only RAM but
also all other components that depends on numa state (like CPUs)),
where as spapr_populate_memory() was only faking numa node in DT for RAM.
It makes non-numa configuration impossible.
Seeing David's ACK on the patch it might be fine, but I believe
commit message should capture that and explain why the change in
behavior is fine.
After a quick look, all spapr code seems to have the same
behavior when nb_numa_nodes==0 and nb_numa_nodes==1, but I'd like
to be sure.
David and/or Tao Xu: do you confirm there's no ABI change at all
on spapr after implicitly creating a NUMA node?