linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] workqueue: retry on NUMA_NO_NODE when create

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:	Fri, 12 Dec 2014 12:29:13 -0500
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Gu, Zheng" <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	tangchen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
	Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] workqueue: retry on NUMA_NO_NODE when create_worker() fails

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:05 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> A pwq bound to a specified node might be last long or even forever after
>> the node was offline.  Especially when this pwq has some back-to-back work
>> items which requeue themselves and cause the pwq can't quit.
>>
>> This kinds of pwqs will cause their own pools busy and maybe create workers.
>> This pools will fail on create_worker() since the node is offline.
>>
>> This case is extremely rare, but it is possible. And we hope create_worker()
>> to be fault-tolerant in this case and other different cases when the node
>> is lack of memory, for example, create_worker() can try to allocate memory
>> from the whole system rather than only the target node, the most important
>> thing is making some progress.
>>
>> So the solution is that, when the create_worker() fails on a specified node,
>> it will retry with NUMA_NO_NODE for further allocation.
>
> The code looks correct. But I don't think this issue depend on node offlining.
> The allocation may also fail if node has no memory.

Oh, sorry. my comment is no correct. Please forget.
--
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/