| Message ID | 1504181068-17822-2-git-send-email-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:04:26PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> > > 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 <ehabkost@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > --- > 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.
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 <ehabkost@redhat.com> >> >> 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 <ehabkost@redhat.com> >> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >> --- >> 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.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:04:26 +0800 Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> > > 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 <ehabkost@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > --- > 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,
At 09/04/2017 05:39 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:04:26 +0800 > Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >> From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> >> >> 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 <ehabkost@redhat.com> >> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >> --- >> 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, > > > >
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 18:16:31 +0800 Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > At 09/04/2017 05:39 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:04:26 +0800 > > Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > >> From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> > >> > >> 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 <ehabkost@redhat.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > >> --- > >> 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, > > > > > > > > > >
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.
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,