This article is a great example of the limits of LLM technical writing.
Say what you will about—or try to prompt out—their rhetorical flourishes, they can link together a series of background, observations, implications, …
But man, they are hopeless at crafting a high-level narrative. It’s one big hedge maze of a garden path:
This part makes good on that - and along the way it covers two things we did not plan to fix. One we hit before the real work could start: dom0's own memory placement was so skewed that synthesising a topology for dom0 without fixing it first would have been an exercise in lying to a kernel that had no memory to back the lie with. That one is a prerequisite, not a detour - everything else in this part is built on top of it. The other we hit after the work was nominally done: a memory-placement bug in our own toolstack that had been silently broken for as long as multi-vnode vNUMA had existed in our tree, and only ever surfaced under a memory-bandwidth benchmark. That one is the genuine detour, and it waits until the end.
Let's start with the prerequisite.
Where are we going here and why?!
And what's so tiring is that with humans, there's often (not always) a coherent meaning there to be untangled. With the LLMs, probably not, because if there was, it would have been in the prompt and the rambling wouldn't be as bad.