linux-kernel - Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node!

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:	Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:40:06 -0500
From:	Don Morris <don.morris@...com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	jarkko.sakkinen@...el.com
Subject: Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node!

On 02/27/2013 12:11 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
> <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> 2013/02/27 13:04, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
>>> <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2013/02/27 11:30, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean you can not boot one socket system with 1G ram ?
>>>>> Assume socket 0 does not support hotplug, other 31 sockets support hot
>>>>> plug.
>>>>>
>>>>> So we could boot system only with socket0, and later one by one hot
>>>>> add other cpus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this case, system can boot. But other cpus with bunch of ram hot
>>>> plug may fails, since system does not have enough memory for cover
>>>> hot added memory. When hot adding memory device, kernel object for the
>>>> memory is allocated from 1G ram since hot added memory has not been
>>>> enabled.
>>>>
>>>
>>> yes, it may fail, if the one node memory need page table and vmemmap
>>> is more than 1g ...
>>>
>>
>>> for hot add memory we need to
>>> 1. add another wrapper for init_memory_mapping, just like
>>> init_mem_mapping() for booting path.
>>> 2. we need make memblock more generic, so we can use it with hot add
>>> memory during runtime.
>>> 3. with that we can initialize page table for hot added node with ram.
>>> a. initial page table for 2M near node top is from node0 ( that does
>>> not support hot plug).
>>> b. then will use 2M for memory below node top...
>>> c. with that we will make sure page table stay on local node.
>>>   alloc_low_pages need to be updated to support that.
>>> 4. need to make sure vmemmap on local node too.
>>
>>
>> I think so too. By this, memory hot plug becomes more useful.
>>
>>>
>>> so hot-remove node will work too later.
>>>
>>> In the long run, we should make booting path and hot adding more
>>> similar and share at most code.
>>> That will make code get more test coverage.
> 
> Tang,  Yasuaki, Andrew,
> 
> Please check if you are ok with attached reverting patch.
> 
> Tim, Don,
> Can you try if attached reverting patch fix all the problems for you ?

I'm sure from the discussion on how to leave in memory hotplug it
likely won't be just a clean reversion, but as a data point -- yes,
this patch does remove the problem as expected (and I don't see
any new ones at first glance... though I'm not trying hotplug yet
obviously).

Thanks,
Don Morris


--
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/