lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:02:25 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Use online node real index in calulate_tbl_offset()

Shaohua, does this look right to you?

	-hpa


On 10/28/2010 07:18 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> 
> Found one numa system that doesn't have ram installed in first socket
> hang during executing init scripts.
> 
> bisect to:
> 
> |commit 932967202182743c01a2eee4bdfa2c42697bc586
> |Author: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
> |Date:   Wed Oct 20 11:07:03 2010 +0800
> |
> |    x86: Spread tlb flush vector between nodes
> 
> It turns out when first socket is not online could have cpus on node1
> tlb_offset set to bigger than NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS.
> 
> that could affect systems like 4 sockets, but socket 2 doesn't
> have installed, sockets 3 will get too big tlb_offset.
> 
> Need to use real online node idx.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
> 
> ---
>  arch/x86/mm/tlb.c |    5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ void native_flush_tlb_others(const struc
>  
>  static void __cpuinit calculate_tlb_offset(void)
>  {
> -	int cpu, node, nr_node_vecs;
> +	int cpu, node, nr_node_vecs, idx = 0;
>  	/*
>  	 * we are changing tlb_vector_offset for each CPU in runtime, but this
>  	 * will not cause inconsistency, as the write is atomic under X86. we
> @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ static void __cpuinit calculate_tlb_offs
>  		nr_node_vecs = NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS/nr_online_nodes;
>  
>  	for_each_online_node(node) {
> -		int node_offset = (node % NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS) *
> +		int node_offset = (idx % NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS) *
>  			nr_node_vecs;
>  		int cpu_offset = 0;
>  		for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node)) {
> @@ -248,6 +248,7 @@ static void __cpuinit calculate_tlb_offs
>  			cpu_offset++;
>  			cpu_offset = cpu_offset % nr_node_vecs;
>  		}
> +		idx++;
>  	}
>  }
>  


-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists