arch_numa: Restore nid checks before registering a memblock with a node

PATCH Applied Marc Zyngier 3 participants 7 messages Nov 27, 2024 – Nov 29, 2024

Subsystems (4)

Stable branch Memory management Driver core memblock and memory management initialization

lore

Share & tools

lore

Marc Zyngier

author

2024-11-27 19:30 UTC #0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arch_numa: Restore nid checks before registering a memblock with a node

Commit 767507654c22 ("arch_numa: switch over to numa_memblks") significantly cleaned up the NUMA registration code, but also dropped a significant check that was refusing to accept to configure a memblock with an invalid nid.

On "quality hardware" such as my ThunderX machine, this results in a kernel that dies immediately:

[    0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000000 [0x431f0a10]
[    0.000000] Linux version 6.12.0-00013-g8920d74cf8db (maz@valley-girl) (gcc (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.40) #3872 SMP PREEMPT Wed Nov 27 15:25:49 GMT 2024
[    0.000000] KASLR disabled due to lack of seed
[    0.000000] Machine model: Cavium ThunderX CN88XX board
[    0.000000] efi: EFI v2.4 by American Megatrends
[    0.000000] efi: ESRT=0xffce0ff18 SMBIOS 3.0=0xfffb0000 ACPI 2.0=0xffec60000 MEMRESERVE=0xffc905d98
[    0.000000] esrt: Reserving ESRT space from 0x0000000ffce0ff18 to 0x0000000ffce0ff50.
[    0.000000] earlycon: pl11 at MMIO 0x000087e024000000 (options '115200n8')
[    0.000000] printk: legacy bootconsole [pl11] enabled
[    0.000000] NODE_DATA(0) allocated [mem 0xff6754580-0xff67566bf]
[    0.000000] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000000000001d40
[    0.000000] Mem abort info:
[    0.000000]   ESR = 0x0000000096000004
[    0.000000]   EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits
[    0.000000]   SET = 0, FnV = 0
[    0.000000]   EA = 0, S1PTW = 0
[    0.000000]   FSC = 0x04: level 0 translation fault
[    0.000000] Data abort info:
[    0.000000]   ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004, ISS2 = 0x00000000
[    0.000000]   CM = 0, WnR = 0, TnD = 0, TagAccess = 0
[    0.000000]   GCS = 0, Overlay = 0, DirtyBit = 0, Xs = 0
[    0.000000] [0000000000001d40] user address but active_mm is swapper
[    0.000000] Internal error: Oops: 0000000096000004 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
[    0.000000] Modules linked in:
[    0.000000] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 6.12.0-00013-g8920d74cf8db #3872
[    0.000000] Hardware name: Cavium ThunderX CN88XX board (DT)
[    0.000000] pstate: a00000c5 (NzCv daIF -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
[    0.000000] pc : sparse_init_nid+0x54/0x428
[    0.000000] lr : sparse_init+0x118/0x240
[    0.000000] sp : ffff800081da3cb0
[    0.000000] x29: ffff800081da3cb0 x28: 0000000fedbab10c x27: 0000000000000001
[    0.000000] x26: 0000000ffee250f8 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: ffff800082102cd0
[    0.000000] x23: 0000000000000001 x22: 0000000000000000 x21: 00000000001fffff
[    0.000000] x20: 0000000000000001 x19: 0000000000000000 x18: ffffffffffffffff
[    0.000000] x17: 0000000001b00000 x16: 0000000ffd130000 x15: 0000000000000000
[    0.000000] x14: 00000000003e0000 x13: 00000000000001c8 x12: 0000000000000014
[    0.000000] x11: ffff800081e82860 x10: ffff8000820fb2c8 x9 : ffff8000820fb490
[    0.000000] x8 : 0000000000ffed20 x7 : 0000000000000014 x6 : 00000000001fffff
[    0.000000] x5 : 00000000ffffffff x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000000000
[    0.000000] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000040 x0 : 0000000000000007
[    0.000000] Call trace:
[    0.000000]  sparse_init_nid+0x54/0x428
[    0.000000]  sparse_init+0x118/0x240
[    0.000000]  bootmem_init+0x70/0x1c8
[    0.000000]  setup_arch+0x184/0x270
[    0.000000]  start_kernel+0x74/0x670
[    0.000000]  __primary_switched+0x80/0x90
[    0.000000] Code: f865d804 d37df060 cb030000 d2800003 (b95d4084)
[    0.000000] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
[    0.000000] Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill the idle task!
[    0.000000] ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill the idle task! ]---

while previous kernel versions were able to recognise how brain-damaged the machine is, and only build a fake node.

Restoring the check brings back some sanity and a "working" system.

Fixes 767507654c22 ("arch_numa: switch over to numa_memblks")

Signed-off-by Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>

Cc Mike Rapoport <[email protected]>

Cc Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>

Cc Will Deacon <[email protected]>

Cc Zi Yan <[email protected]>

Cc Dan Williams <[email protected]>

Cc David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>

Cc Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

Cc [email protected]

---
 drivers/base/arch_numa.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

drivers/base/arch_numa.c +15 -1

index e187016764265..5457248eb0811 100644
@@ -207,7 +207,21 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 static int __init numa_register_nodes(void)
 {
 	int nid;
-
+	struct memblock_region *mblk;
+
+	/* Check that valid nid is set to memblks */
+	for_each_mem_region(mblk) {
+		int mblk_nid = memblock_get_region_node(mblk);
+		phys_addr_t start = mblk->base;
+		phys_addr_t end = mblk->base + mblk->size - 1;
+
+		if (mblk_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || mblk_nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
+			pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %pap-%pap]\n",
+				mblk_nid, &start, &end);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+	}
+ 
 	/* Finally register nodes. */
 	for_each_node_mask(nid, numa_nodes_parsed) {
 		unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;

Signature · 1 line

2.39.2

Mike Rapoport

maintainer

2024-11-28 07:03 UTC #1 lore raw

Hi Marc,

Quoted 91 lines · Marc Zyngier

On "quality hardware" such as my ThunderX machine, this results in a kernel that dies immediately:

[    0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000000 [0x431f0a10]
[    0.000000] Linux version 6.12.0-00013-g8920d74cf8db (maz@valley-girl) (gcc (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.40) #3872 SMP PREEMPT Wed Nov 27 15:25:49 GMT 2024
[    0.000000] KASLR disabled due to lack of seed
[    0.000000] Machine model: Cavium ThunderX CN88XX board
[    0.000000] efi: EFI v2.4 by American Megatrends
[    0.000000] efi: ESRT=0xffce0ff18 SMBIOS 3.0=0xfffb0000 ACPI 2.0=0xffec60000 MEMRESERVE=0xffc905d98
[    0.000000] esrt: Reserving ESRT space from 0x0000000ffce0ff18 to 0x0000000ffce0ff50.
[    0.000000] earlycon: pl11 at MMIO 0x000087e024000000 (options '115200n8')
[    0.000000] printk: legacy bootconsole [pl11] enabled
[    0.000000] NODE_DATA(0) allocated [mem 0xff6754580-0xff67566bf]
[    0.000000] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000000000001d40
[    0.000000] Mem abort info:
[    0.000000]   ESR = 0x0000000096000004
[    0.000000]   EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits
[    0.000000]   SET = 0, FnV = 0
[    0.000000]   EA = 0, S1PTW = 0
[    0.000000]   FSC = 0x04: level 0 translation fault
[    0.000000] Data abort info:
[    0.000000]   ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004, ISS2 = 0x00000000
[    0.000000]   CM = 0, WnR = 0, TnD = 0, TagAccess = 0
[    0.000000]   GCS = 0, Overlay = 0, DirtyBit = 0, Xs = 0
[    0.000000] [0000000000001d40] user address but active_mm is swapper
[    0.000000] Internal error: Oops: 0000000096000004 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
[    0.000000] Modules linked in:
[    0.000000] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 6.12.0-00013-g8920d74cf8db #3872
[    0.000000] Hardware name: Cavium ThunderX CN88XX board (DT)
[    0.000000] pstate: a00000c5 (NzCv daIF -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
[    0.000000] pc : sparse_init_nid+0x54/0x428
[    0.000000] lr : sparse_init+0x118/0x240
[    0.000000] sp : ffff800081da3cb0
[    0.000000] x29: ffff800081da3cb0 x28: 0000000fedbab10c x27: 0000000000000001
[    0.000000] x26: 0000000ffee250f8 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: ffff800082102cd0
[    0.000000] x23: 0000000000000001 x22: 0000000000000000 x21: 00000000001fffff
[    0.000000] x20: 0000000000000001 x19: 0000000000000000 x18: ffffffffffffffff
[    0.000000] x17: 0000000001b00000 x16: 0000000ffd130000 x15: 0000000000000000
[    0.000000] x14: 00000000003e0000 x13: 00000000000001c8 x12: 0000000000000014
[    0.000000] x11: ffff800081e82860 x10: ffff8000820fb2c8 x9 : ffff8000820fb490
[    0.000000] x8 : 0000000000ffed20 x7 : 0000000000000014 x6 : 00000000001fffff
[    0.000000] x5 : 00000000ffffffff x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000000000
[    0.000000] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000040 x0 : 0000000000000007
[    0.000000] Call trace:
[    0.000000]  sparse_init_nid+0x54/0x428
[    0.000000]  sparse_init+0x118/0x240
[    0.000000]  bootmem_init+0x70/0x1c8
[    0.000000]  setup_arch+0x184/0x270
[    0.000000]  start_kernel+0x74/0x670
[    0.000000]  __primary_switched+0x80/0x90
[    0.000000] Code: f865d804 d37df060 cb030000 d2800003 (b95d4084)
[    0.000000] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
[    0.000000] Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill the idle task!
[    0.000000] ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill the idle task! ]---

while previous kernel versions were able to recognise how brain-damaged the machine is, and only build a fake node.

Restoring the check brings back some sanity and a "working" system.

Fixes 767507654c22 ("arch_numa: switch over to numa_memblks")

Signed-off-by Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>

Cc Mike Rapoport <[email protected]>

Cc Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>

Cc Will Deacon <[email protected]>

Cc Zi Yan <[email protected]>

Cc Dan Williams <[email protected]>

Cc David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>

Cc Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

Cc [email protected]

---
 drivers/base/arch_numa.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

drivers/base/arch_numa.c +3 -1

index e187016764265..5457248eb0811 100644
@@ -207,7 +207,21 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 static int __init numa_register_nodes(void)
 {
 	int nid;
-
+	struct memblock_region *mblk;
+
+	/* Check that valid nid is set to memblks */

drivers/base/arch_numa.c static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn) · line 222

Quoted 10 lines

drivers/base/arch_numa.c +10 -0

+	for_each_mem_region(mblk) {
+		int mblk_nid = memblock_get_region_node(mblk);
+		phys_addr_t start = mblk->base;
+		phys_addr_t end = mblk->base + mblk->size - 1;
+
+		if (mblk_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || mblk_nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
+			pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %pap-%pap]\n",
+				mblk_nid, &start, &end);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}

We have memblock_validate_numa_coverage() that checks that amount of memory with unset node id is less than a threshold. The loop here can be replaced with something like

	if (!memblock_validate_numa_coverage(0))
		return -EINVAL;

Quoted 8 lines

drivers/base/arch_numa.c +2 -0

+	}
+ 
 	/* Finally register nodes. */
 	for_each_node_mask(nid, numa_nodes_parsed) {
 		unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;

Signature · 1 line

2.39.2

Signature · 2 lines

Sincerely yours,
Mike.

Marc Zyngier

author

2024-11-28 16:52 UTC #2 lore raw

Hi Mike,

Quoted 30 lines · Mike Rapoport

Hi Marc,
Quoted 12 lines
drivers/base/arch_numa.c +3 -1
index e187016764265..5457248eb0811 100644
@@ -207,7 +207,21 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 static int __init numa_register_nodes(void)
 {
 	int nid;
-
+	struct memblock_region *mblk;
+
+	/* Check that valid nid is set to memblks */
drivers/base/arch_numa.c static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn) · line 222
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/base/arch_numa.c +10 -0
+	for_each_mem_region(mblk) {
+		int mblk_nid = memblock_get_region_node(mblk);
+		phys_addr_t start = mblk->base;
+		phys_addr_t end = mblk->base + mblk->size - 1;
+
+		if (mblk_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || mblk_nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
+			pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %pap-%pap]\n",
+				mblk_nid, &start, &end);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
We have memblock_validate_numa_coverage() that checks that amount of memory with unset node id is less than a threshold. The loop here can be replaced with something like

Quoted 2 lines

	if (!memblock_validate_numa_coverage(0))
		return -EINVAL;

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to result in something that works (relevant extract only):

[    0.000000] NUMA: no nodes coverage for 9MB of 65516MB RAM
[    0.000000] NUMA: Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000500000-0x0000000fff0fffff]
[    0.000000] NUMA: no nodes coverage for 0MB of 65516MB RAM
[    0.000000] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000000000001d40

Any idea?

M.

Signature · 1 line

Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Mike Rapoport

maintainer

2024-11-29 08:24 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 40 lines · Marc Zyngier

Hi Mike,
Quoted 30 lines · Mike Rapoport
Hi Marc,
Quoted 12 lines
drivers/base/arch_numa.c +3 -1
index e187016764265..5457248eb0811 100644
@@ -207,7 +207,21 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 static int __init numa_register_nodes(void)
 {
 	int nid;
-
+	struct memblock_region *mblk;
+
+	/* Check that valid nid is set to memblks */
drivers/base/arch_numa.c static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn) · line 222
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/base/arch_numa.c +10 -0
+	for_each_mem_region(mblk) {
+		int mblk_nid = memblock_get_region_node(mblk);
+		phys_addr_t start = mblk->base;
+		phys_addr_t end = mblk->base + mblk->size - 1;
+
+		if (mblk_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || mblk_nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
+			pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %pap-%pap]\n",
+				mblk_nid, &start, &end);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
We have memblock_validate_numa_coverage() that checks that amount of memory with unset node id is less than a threshold. The loop here can be replaced with something like
Quoted 2 lines
	if (!memblock_validate_numa_coverage(0))
		return -EINVAL;
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to result in something that works (relevant extract only):

Quoted 6 lines

[    0.000000] NUMA: no nodes coverage for 9MB of 65516MB RAM
[    0.000000] NUMA: Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000500000-0x0000000fff0fffff]
[    0.000000] NUMA: no nodes coverage for 0MB of 65516MB RAM
[    0.000000] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000000000001d40

Any idea?

With 0 as the threshold the validation fails for the fake node, but it should be fine with memblock_validate_numa_coverage(1)

Quoted 4 lines

M.

Signature · 1 line

Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Signature · 2 lines

Sincerely yours,
Mike.

Marc Zyngier

author

2024-11-29 08:42 UTC #4 lore raw

Quoted 47 lines · Mike Rapoport

Quoted 45 lines · Marc Zyngier
Hi Mike,
Quoted 30 lines · Mike Rapoport
Hi Marc,
Quoted 12 lines
drivers/base/arch_numa.c +3 -1
index e187016764265..5457248eb0811 100644
@@ -207,7 +207,21 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 static int __init numa_register_nodes(void)
 {
 	int nid;
-
+	struct memblock_region *mblk;
+
+	/* Check that valid nid is set to memblks */
drivers/base/arch_numa.c static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn) · line 222
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/base/arch_numa.c +10 -0
+	for_each_mem_region(mblk) {
+		int mblk_nid = memblock_get_region_node(mblk);
+		phys_addr_t start = mblk->base;
+		phys_addr_t end = mblk->base + mblk->size - 1;
+
+		if (mblk_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || mblk_nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
+			pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %pap-%pap]\n",
+				mblk_nid, &start, &end);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
We have memblock_validate_numa_coverage() that checks that amount of memory with unset node id is less than a threshold. The loop here can be replaced with something like
Quoted 2 lines
	if (!memblock_validate_numa_coverage(0))
		return -EINVAL;
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to result in something that works (relevant extract only):
[    0.000000] NUMA: no nodes coverage for 9MB of 65516MB RAM
[    0.000000] NUMA: Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000500000-0x0000000fff0fffff]
[    0.000000] NUMA: no nodes coverage for 0MB of 65516MB RAM
[    0.000000] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000000000001d40

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 1 line
Any idea?
With 0 as the threshold the validation fails for the fake node, but it should be fine with memblock_validate_numa_coverage(1)

Huh, subtle. This indeed seems to work. I'll respin the patch next week.

Thanks for your help,

M.

Signature · 1 line

Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Mike Rapoport

maintainer

2024-11-29 09:23 UTC #5 lore raw

Quoted 49 lines · Marc Zyngier

Quoted 47 lines · Mike Rapoport
Quoted 45 lines · Marc Zyngier
Hi Mike,
Quoted 30 lines · Mike Rapoport
Hi Marc,
Quoted 12 lines
drivers/base/arch_numa.c +3 -1
index e187016764265..5457248eb0811 100644
@@ -207,7 +207,21 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 static int __init numa_register_nodes(void)
 {
 	int nid;
-
+	struct memblock_region *mblk;
+
+	/* Check that valid nid is set to memblks */
drivers/base/arch_numa.c static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn) · line 222
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/base/arch_numa.c +10 -0
+	for_each_mem_region(mblk) {
+		int mblk_nid = memblock_get_region_node(mblk);
+		phys_addr_t start = mblk->base;
+		phys_addr_t end = mblk->base + mblk->size - 1;
+
+		if (mblk_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || mblk_nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
+			pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %pap-%pap]\n",
+				mblk_nid, &start, &end);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
We have memblock_validate_numa_coverage() that checks that amount of memory with unset node id is less than a threshold. The loop here can be replaced with something like
Quoted 2 lines
	if (!memblock_validate_numa_coverage(0))
		return -EINVAL;
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to result in something that works (relevant extract only):
[    0.000000] NUMA: no nodes coverage for 9MB of 65516MB RAM
[    0.000000] NUMA: Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000500000-0x0000000fff0fffff]
[    0.000000] NUMA: no nodes coverage for 0MB of 65516MB RAM
[    0.000000] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000000000001d40

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
Any idea?
With 0 as the threshold the validation fails for the fake node, but it should be fine with memblock_validate_numa_coverage(1)
Huh, subtle. This indeed seems to work. I'll respin the patch next week.

With the patch below memblock_validate_numa_coverage(0) should also work and it makes more sense.

@Andrew, I can take both this and Marc's new patch via memblock tree if you prefer.

From de55af44c02bc9aa43f05a785ac66a5aafa43354 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 11:13:47 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] memblock: allow zero threshold in validate_numa_converage()

Currently memblock validate_numa_converage() returns false negative when threshold set to zero.

Make the check if the memory size with invalid node ID is greater than the threshold exclusive to fix that.

Signed-off-by Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <[email protected]>

---
 mm/memblock.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

mm/memblock.c +2 -2

index 0389ce5cd281..095c18b5c430 100644
@@ -735,7 +735,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
 /**
  * memblock_validate_numa_coverage - check if amount of memory with
  * no node ID assigned is less than a threshold
- * @threshold_bytes: maximal number of pages that can have unassigned node
+ * @threshold_bytes: maximal memory size that can have unassigned node
  * ID (in bytes).
  *
  * A buggy firmware may report memory that does not belong to any node.

@@ -755,7 +755,7 @@ bool __init_memblock memblock_validate_numa_coverage(unsigned long threshold_byt
 			nr_pages += end_pfn - start_pfn;
 	}
 
-	if ((nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT) >= threshold_bytes) {
+	if ((nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT) > threshold_bytes) {
 		mem_size_mb = memblock_phys_mem_size() >> 20;
 		pr_err("NUMA: no nodes coverage for %luMB of %luMB RAM\n",
 		       (nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT) >> 20, mem_size_mb);

Signature · 1 line

2.45.2

Quoted 3 lines

Thanks for your help,
	M.

Signature · 2 lines

Sincerely yours,
Mike.

Andrew Morton

maintainer

2024-11-29 10:41 UTC #6 lore raw

Quoted 2 lines · On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 11:23:24 +0200 Mike Rapoport <[email protected]> wrote:

@Andrew, I can take both this and Marc's new patch via memblock tree if you prefer.

Go for it.