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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:31:10 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>
Cc:	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Don Morris <don.morris@...com>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node!

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> [trim down CC list a bit]
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/28/2013 08:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> > Yingai, Andrew,
>>> >  is this ok with you two?
>>> >
>>> >         Linus
>>>
>>> FWIW, it makes sense to me iff it resolves the problems
>>
>>
>> I prefer to reverting all 8 patches.
>>
>> Actually I have worked out one patch that could solve all problems, but it
>> is too intrusive that I do      not want to split it to small pieces to post
>> it.
>>
>> Leaving the movablemem_map related changes in  the upstream tree, will
>> prevent me from continuing to make memblock to be used to allocate page
>> table on local node ram for hot add.
>>
>> Will send reverting patch and putting page table on local node patch around
>> 10pm after I get home.
>
> Please check attached patches.
>
> Plan A. revert all 8 patches:
>     revert_movablemem_map.patch
>
> Plan B. fix movablemem_map:
>     kill_max_low_pfn_mapped.patch and fix_movablemem_map.patch
>
> fix_movablemem_map.patch is too risky, and need more test.
>
> Konrad, Stefano:
> Can you check kill_max_low_pfn_mapped.patch and fix_movablemem_map.patch
> on top of today's Linus tree to check if it breaks Xen?
>

Sorry, miss change in setup.c during split the patch.

Thanks

Yinghai

Download attachment "fix_movablemem_map_v2.patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (20391 bytes)