linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: numa: drop ZONE

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, 11 Jun 2014 09:23:37 -0400
From:	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: numa: drop ZONE_ALIGN


Yinghai, sorry for my late reply.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 15:13:41 -0700
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 18:29:11 -0700
> > Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com> wrote:
> > [    0.000000] e820: BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
> > [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000000009fbff] usable
> > [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000000009fc00-0x000000000009ffff] reserved
> > [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000000e0000-0x00000000000fffff] reserved
> > [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x000000003ffeffff] usable
> > [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000003fff0000-0x000000003fffefff] ACPI data
> > [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000003ffff000-0x000000003fffffff] ACPI NVS
> > [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000040200000-0x00000000801fffff] usable
> ...
> > [    0.000000] SRAT: PXM 0 -> APIC 0x00 -> Node 0
> > [    0.000000] SRAT: PXM 0 -> APIC 0x01 -> Node 0
> > [    0.000000] SRAT: PXM 1 -> APIC 0x02 -> Node 1
> > [    0.000000] SRAT: PXM 1 -> APIC 0x03 -> Node 1
> > [    0.000000] SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x3fffffff]
> > [    0.000000] SRAT: Node 1 PXM 1 [mem 0x40200000-0x801fffff]
> > [    0.000000] Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x3fffffff]
> > [    0.000000]   NODE_DATA [mem 0x3ffec000-0x3ffeffff]
> > [    0.000000] Initmem setup node 1 [mem 0x40800000-0x801fffff]
> > [    0.000000]   NODE_DATA [mem 0x801fb000-0x801fefff]
> 
> so node1 start is aligned to 8M from 2M
> 
> node0: [0, 1G)
> node1: [1G+2M, 2G+2M)
> 
> The zone should not cross the 8M boundary?

Yes, but the question is: why?

> In the case should we trim the memblock for numa to be 8M alignment ?

My current thinking, after discussing this with David, is to just page
align the memory range. This should fix the hyperv-triggered bug in 2.6.32
and seems to be the right thing for upstream too.
--
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/