x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling
NUMA distance table handling has the following problems.
* numa_reset_distance() uses numa_distance * sizeof(numa_distance[0])
as the table size when it should be using the square of
numa_distance.
* The same size miscalculation when allocation space for phys_dist in
numa_emulation().
* In numa_emulation(), phys_dist must be reserved; otherwise, the new
emulated distance table may overlap it.
Fix them and, while at it, take numa_distance_cnt resetting in
numa_reset_distance() out of the if block to simplify the code a bit.
David Rientjes reported incorrect handling of distance table during
emulation.
-tj: Edited out numa_alloc_distance() related changes which weren't
necessary and rewrote patch description.
-v2: Ingo was unhappy with 80-column limit induced linebreaks. Let
lines run over 80-column.
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Reported-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
index 7757d22..541746f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
@@ -390,14 +390,12 @@
*/
void __init numa_reset_distance(void)
{
- size_t size;
+ size_t size = numa_distance_cnt * numa_distance_cnt * sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
- if (numa_distance_cnt) {
- size = numa_distance_cnt * sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
+ if (numa_distance_cnt)
memblock_x86_free_range(__pa(numa_distance),
__pa(numa_distance) + size);
- numa_distance_cnt = 0;
- }
+ numa_distance_cnt = 0;
numa_distance = NULL;
}