Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/3] hw/acpi-build: Fix SRAT memory building in case of node 0 without RAM
Hi Igor, At 09/04/2017 07:11 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: [...] +if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START && +next_base > HOLE_640K_START) { +mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START; +if (mem_len > 0) { +numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); +build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1, + MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); +} + +/* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */ +if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) { +next_base = HOLE_640K_END; Is this assignment really necessary? It is necessary, because we set mem_base to next_base before setting next_base; But, I can refine it: MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); } +mem_base = HOLE_640K_END; /* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */ if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) { -next_base = HOLE_640K_END; continue; } -mem_base = HOLE_640K_END; mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END; } Is it? I was wrong, so just leave it as it is now. OK, I see. Thanks, dou.
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/3] hw/acpi-build: Fix SRAT memory building in case of node 0 without RAM
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 18:16:31 +0800 Dou Liyang wrote: > At 09/04/2017 05:39 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:04:26 +0800 > > Dou Liyang wrote: > > > >> From: Eduardo Habkost > >> > >> Currently, Using the fisrt node without memory on the machine makes > >> QEMU unhappy. With this example command line: > >> ... \ > >> -m 1024M,slots=4,maxmem=32G \ > >> -numa node,nodeid=0 \ > >> -numa node,mem=1024M,nodeid=1 \ > >> -numa node,nodeid=2 \ > >> -numa node,nodeid=3 \ > >> Guest reports "No NUMA configuration found" and the NUMA topology is > >> wrong. > >> > >> This is because when QEMU builds ACPI SRAT, it regards node 0 as the > >> default node to deal with the memory hole(640K-1M). this means the > >> node0 must have some memory(>1M), but, actually it can have no > >> memory. > >> > >> Fix this problem by cut out the 640K hole in the same way the PCI > >> 4G hole does. Also do some cleanup. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost > >> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang > >> --- > >> hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 30 +++--- > >> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > >> index 98dd424..48525a1 100644 > >> --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > >> +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > >> @@ -2318,6 +2318,9 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker) > >> (void *)tpm2_ptr, "TPM2", sizeof(*tpm2_ptr), 4, NULL, > >> NULL); > >> } > >> > >> +#define HOLE_640K_START (640 * 1024) > >> +#define HOLE_640K_END (1024 * 1024) > >> + > >> static void > >> build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine) > >> { > >> @@ -2373,17 +2376,30 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, > >> MachineState *machine) > >> next_base = 0; > >> numa_start = table_data->len; > >> > >> -numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); > >> -build_srat_memory(numamem, 0, 640 * 1024, 0, MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); > >> -next_base = 1024 * 1024; > >> for (i = 1; i < pcms->numa_nodes + 1; ++i) { > >> mem_base = next_base; > >> mem_len = pcms->node_mem[i - 1]; > >> -if (i == 1) { > >> -mem_len -= 1024 * 1024; > >> -} > >> next_base = mem_base + mem_len; > >> > >> +/* Cut out the 640K hole */ > >> +if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START && > >> +next_base > HOLE_640K_START) { > >> +mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START; > >> +if (mem_len > 0) { > >> +numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); > >> +build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1, > >> + MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); > >> +} > >> + > >> +/* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */ > >> +if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) { > >> +next_base = HOLE_640K_END; > > Is this assignment really necessary? > > > > It is necessary, because we set mem_base to next_base before setting > next_base; > > But, I can refine it: > > MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); > } > > +mem_base = HOLE_640K_END; > /* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */ > if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) { > -next_base = HOLE_640K_END; > continue; > } > -mem_base = HOLE_640K_END; > mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END; > } > > Is it? I was wrong, so just leave it as it is now. > > Thanks, > dou. > > > it seems that next_base will be set at the start of the loop. > > > > > >> +continue; > >> +} > >> +mem_base = HOLE_640K_END; > >> +mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END; > >> +} > >> + > >> /* Cut out the ACPI_PCI hole */ > >> if (mem_base <= pcms->below_4g_mem_size && > >> next_base > pcms->below_4g_mem_size) { > >> @@ -2395,7 +2411,7 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, > >> MachineState *machine) > >> } > >> mem_base = 1ULL << 32; > >> mem_len = next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; > >> -next_base += (1ULL << 32) - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; > >> +next_base = mem_base + mem_len; > >> } > >> numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); > >> build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1, > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/3] hw/acpi-build: Fix SRAT memory building in case of node 0 without RAM
At 09/04/2017 05:39 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:04:26 +0800 Dou Liyang wrote: From: Eduardo Habkost Currently, Using the fisrt node without memory on the machine makes QEMU unhappy. With this example command line: ... \ -m 1024M,slots=4,maxmem=32G \ -numa node,nodeid=0 \ -numa node,mem=1024M,nodeid=1 \ -numa node,nodeid=2 \ -numa node,nodeid=3 \ Guest reports "No NUMA configuration found" and the NUMA topology is wrong. This is because when QEMU builds ACPI SRAT, it regards node 0 as the default node to deal with the memory hole(640K-1M). this means the node0 must have some memory(>1M), but, actually it can have no memory. Fix this problem by cut out the 640K hole in the same way the PCI 4G hole does. Also do some cleanup. Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang --- hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 30 +++--- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c index 98dd424..48525a1 100644 --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c @@ -2318,6 +2318,9 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker) (void *)tpm2_ptr, "TPM2", sizeof(*tpm2_ptr), 4, NULL, NULL); } +#define HOLE_640K_START (640 * 1024) +#define HOLE_640K_END (1024 * 1024) + static void build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine) { @@ -2373,17 +2376,30 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine) next_base = 0; numa_start = table_data->len; -numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); -build_srat_memory(numamem, 0, 640 * 1024, 0, MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); -next_base = 1024 * 1024; for (i = 1; i < pcms->numa_nodes + 1; ++i) { mem_base = next_base; mem_len = pcms->node_mem[i - 1]; -if (i == 1) { -mem_len -= 1024 * 1024; -} next_base = mem_base + mem_len; +/* Cut out the 640K hole */ +if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START && +next_base > HOLE_640K_START) { +mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START; +if (mem_len > 0) { +numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); +build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1, + MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); +} + +/* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */ +if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) { +next_base = HOLE_640K_END; Is this assignment really necessary? It is necessary, because we set mem_base to next_base before setting next_base; But, I can refine it: MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); } +mem_base = HOLE_640K_END; /* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */ if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) { -next_base = HOLE_640K_END; continue; } -mem_base = HOLE_640K_END; mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END; } Is it? Thanks, dou. it seems that next_base will be set at the start of the loop. +continue; +} +mem_base = HOLE_640K_END; +mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END; +} + /* Cut out the ACPI_PCI hole */ if (mem_base <= pcms->below_4g_mem_size && next_base > pcms->below_4g_mem_size) { @@ -2395,7 +2411,7 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine) } mem_base = 1ULL << 32; mem_len = next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; -next_base += (1ULL << 32) - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; +next_base = mem_base + mem_len; } numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1,
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/3] hw/acpi-build: Fix SRAT memory building in case of node 0 without RAM
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:04:26 +0800 Dou Liyang wrote: > From: Eduardo Habkost > > Currently, Using the fisrt node without memory on the machine makes > QEMU unhappy. With this example command line: > ... \ > -m 1024M,slots=4,maxmem=32G \ > -numa node,nodeid=0 \ > -numa node,mem=1024M,nodeid=1 \ > -numa node,nodeid=2 \ > -numa node,nodeid=3 \ > Guest reports "No NUMA configuration found" and the NUMA topology is > wrong. > > This is because when QEMU builds ACPI SRAT, it regards node 0 as the > default node to deal with the memory hole(640K-1M). this means the > node0 must have some memory(>1M), but, actually it can have no > memory. > > Fix this problem by cut out the 640K hole in the same way the PCI > 4G hole does. Also do some cleanup. > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost > Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang > --- > hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 30 +++--- > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > index 98dd424..48525a1 100644 > --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > @@ -2318,6 +2318,9 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker) > (void *)tpm2_ptr, "TPM2", sizeof(*tpm2_ptr), 4, NULL, NULL); > } > > +#define HOLE_640K_START (640 * 1024) > +#define HOLE_640K_END (1024 * 1024) > + > static void > build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine) > { > @@ -2373,17 +2376,30 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, > MachineState *machine) > next_base = 0; > numa_start = table_data->len; > > -numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); > -build_srat_memory(numamem, 0, 640 * 1024, 0, MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); > -next_base = 1024 * 1024; > for (i = 1; i < pcms->numa_nodes + 1; ++i) { > mem_base = next_base; > mem_len = pcms->node_mem[i - 1]; > -if (i == 1) { > -mem_len -= 1024 * 1024; > -} > next_base = mem_base + mem_len; > > +/* Cut out the 640K hole */ > +if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START && > +next_base > HOLE_640K_START) { > +mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START; > +if (mem_len > 0) { > +numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); > +build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1, > + MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); > +} > + > +/* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */ > +if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) { > +next_base = HOLE_640K_END; Is this assignment really necessary? it seems that next_base will be set at the start of the loop. > +continue; > +} > +mem_base = HOLE_640K_END; > +mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END; > +} > + > /* Cut out the ACPI_PCI hole */ > if (mem_base <= pcms->below_4g_mem_size && > next_base > pcms->below_4g_mem_size) { > @@ -2395,7 +2411,7 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, > MachineState *machine) > } > mem_base = 1ULL << 32; > mem_len = next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; > -next_base += (1ULL << 32) - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; > +next_base = mem_base + mem_len; > } > numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); > build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1,
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/3] hw/acpi-build: Fix SRAT memory building in case of node 0 without RAM
Hi, Eduardo At 09/01/2017 05:36 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:04:26PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: From: Eduardo Habkost Currently, Using the fisrt node without memory on the machine makes QEMU unhappy. With this example command line: ... \ -m 1024M,slots=4,maxmem=32G \ -numa node,nodeid=0 \ -numa node,mem=1024M,nodeid=1 \ -numa node,nodeid=2 \ -numa node,nodeid=3 \ Guest reports "No NUMA configuration found" and the NUMA topology is wrong. This is because when QEMU builds ACPI SRAT, it regards node 0 as the default node to deal with the memory hole(640K-1M). this means the node0 must have some memory(>1M), but, actually it can have no memory. Fix this problem by cut out the 640K hole in the same way the PCI 4G hole does. Also do some cleanup. Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang --- hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 30 +++--- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c index 98dd424..48525a1 100644 --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c @@ -2318,6 +2318,9 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker) (void *)tpm2_ptr, "TPM2", sizeof(*tpm2_ptr), 4, NULL, NULL); } +#define HOLE_640K_START (640 * 1024) +#define HOLE_640K_END (1024 * 1024) + static void build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine) { @@ -2373,17 +2376,30 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine) next_base = 0; numa_start = table_data->len; -numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); -build_srat_memory(numamem, 0, 640 * 1024, 0, MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); -next_base = 1024 * 1024; for (i = 1; i < pcms->numa_nodes + 1; ++i) { mem_base = next_base; mem_len = pcms->node_mem[i - 1]; -if (i == 1) { -mem_len -= 1024 * 1024; -} next_base = mem_base + mem_len; +/* Cut out the 640K hole */ +if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START && +next_base > HOLE_640K_START) { +mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START; +if (mem_len > 0) { +numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); +build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1, + MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); +} + +/* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */ +if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) { +next_base = HOLE_640K_END; +continue; +} +mem_base = HOLE_640K_END; +mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END; +} + /* Cut out the ACPI_PCI hole */ if (mem_base <= pcms->below_4g_mem_size && next_base > pcms->below_4g_mem_size) { @@ -2395,7 +2411,7 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine) } mem_base = 1ULL << 32; mem_len = next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; -next_base += (1ULL << 32) - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; +next_base = mem_base + mem_len; Is this extra change intentional? Yes, it is, Just for readability. :-) I find the code more readable with it, but it should go in a separate patch because it is unrelated to the bug fix. Indeed, I will split it out. Thanks, dou.
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/3] hw/acpi-build: Fix SRAT memory building in case of node 0 without RAM
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:04:26PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > From: Eduardo Habkost > > Currently, Using the fisrt node without memory on the machine makes > QEMU unhappy. With this example command line: > ... \ > -m 1024M,slots=4,maxmem=32G \ > -numa node,nodeid=0 \ > -numa node,mem=1024M,nodeid=1 \ > -numa node,nodeid=2 \ > -numa node,nodeid=3 \ > Guest reports "No NUMA configuration found" and the NUMA topology is > wrong. > > This is because when QEMU builds ACPI SRAT, it regards node 0 as the > default node to deal with the memory hole(640K-1M). this means the > node0 must have some memory(>1M), but, actually it can have no > memory. > > Fix this problem by cut out the 640K hole in the same way the PCI > 4G hole does. Also do some cleanup. > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost > Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang > --- > hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 30 +++--- > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > index 98dd424..48525a1 100644 > --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > @@ -2318,6 +2318,9 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker) > (void *)tpm2_ptr, "TPM2", sizeof(*tpm2_ptr), 4, NULL, NULL); > } > > +#define HOLE_640K_START (640 * 1024) > +#define HOLE_640K_END (1024 * 1024) > + > static void > build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine) > { > @@ -2373,17 +2376,30 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, > MachineState *machine) > next_base = 0; > numa_start = table_data->len; > > -numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); > -build_srat_memory(numamem, 0, 640 * 1024, 0, MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); > -next_base = 1024 * 1024; > for (i = 1; i < pcms->numa_nodes + 1; ++i) { > mem_base = next_base; > mem_len = pcms->node_mem[i - 1]; > -if (i == 1) { > -mem_len -= 1024 * 1024; > -} > next_base = mem_base + mem_len; > > +/* Cut out the 640K hole */ > +if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START && > +next_base > HOLE_640K_START) { > +mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START; > +if (mem_len > 0) { > +numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); > +build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1, > + MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); > +} > + > +/* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */ > +if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) { > +next_base = HOLE_640K_END; > +continue; > +} > +mem_base = HOLE_640K_END; > +mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END; > +} > + > /* Cut out the ACPI_PCI hole */ > if (mem_base <= pcms->below_4g_mem_size && > next_base > pcms->below_4g_mem_size) { > @@ -2395,7 +2411,7 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, > MachineState *machine) > } > mem_base = 1ULL << 32; > mem_len = next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; > -next_base += (1ULL << 32) - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; > +next_base = mem_base + mem_len; Is this extra change intentional? I find the code more readable with it, but it should go in a separate patch because it is unrelated to the bug fix. -- Eduardo
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/3] hw/acpi-build: Fix SRAT memory building in case of node 0 without RAM
From: Eduardo Habkost Currently, Using the fisrt node without memory on the machine makes QEMU unhappy. With this example command line: ... \ -m 1024M,slots=4,maxmem=32G \ -numa node,nodeid=0 \ -numa node,mem=1024M,nodeid=1 \ -numa node,nodeid=2 \ -numa node,nodeid=3 \ Guest reports "No NUMA configuration found" and the NUMA topology is wrong. This is because when QEMU builds ACPI SRAT, it regards node 0 as the default node to deal with the memory hole(640K-1M). this means the node0 must have some memory(>1M), but, actually it can have no memory. Fix this problem by cut out the 640K hole in the same way the PCI 4G hole does. Also do some cleanup. Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang --- hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 30 +++--- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c index 98dd424..48525a1 100644 --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c @@ -2318,6 +2318,9 @@ build_tpm2(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker) (void *)tpm2_ptr, "TPM2", sizeof(*tpm2_ptr), 4, NULL, NULL); } +#define HOLE_640K_START (640 * 1024) +#define HOLE_640K_END (1024 * 1024) + static void build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine) { @@ -2373,17 +2376,30 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine) next_base = 0; numa_start = table_data->len; -numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); -build_srat_memory(numamem, 0, 640 * 1024, 0, MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); -next_base = 1024 * 1024; for (i = 1; i < pcms->numa_nodes + 1; ++i) { mem_base = next_base; mem_len = pcms->node_mem[i - 1]; -if (i == 1) { -mem_len -= 1024 * 1024; -} next_base = mem_base + mem_len; +/* Cut out the 640K hole */ +if (mem_base <= HOLE_640K_START && +next_base > HOLE_640K_START) { +mem_len -= next_base - HOLE_640K_START; +if (mem_len > 0) { +numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); +build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1, + MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); +} + +/* Check for the rare case: 640K < RAM < 1M */ +if (next_base <= HOLE_640K_END) { +next_base = HOLE_640K_END; +continue; +} +mem_base = HOLE_640K_END; +mem_len = next_base - HOLE_640K_END; +} + /* Cut out the ACPI_PCI hole */ if (mem_base <= pcms->below_4g_mem_size && next_base > pcms->below_4g_mem_size) { @@ -2395,7 +2411,7 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *machine) } mem_base = 1ULL << 32; mem_len = next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; -next_base += (1ULL << 32) - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; +next_base = mem_base + mem_len; } numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1, -- 2.5.5