linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

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, 5 Apr 2017 11:24:27 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Reza Arbab <arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Yasuaki Ishimatsu <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
        Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, qiuxishi@...wei.com,
        Kani Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@....com>, slaoub@...il.com,
        Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Zhang Zhen <zhenzhang.zhang@...wei.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
        Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...il.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 08:42:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:41:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote:
> > >>I think I found another edge case.  You
> > >>get an oops when removing all of a node's memory:
> > >>
> > >>__nr_to_section
> > >>__pfn_to_section
> > >>find_biggest_section_pfn
> > >>shrink_pgdat_span
> > >>__remove_zone
> > >>__remove_section
> > >>__remove_pages
> > >>arch_remove_memory
> > >>remove_memory
> > >
> > >Is this something new or an old issue? I believe the state after the
> > >online should be the same as before. So if you onlined the full node
> > >then there shouldn't be any difference. Let me have a look...
> > 
> > It's new. Without this patchset, I can repeatedly
> > add_memory()->online_movable->offline->remove_memory() all of a node's
> > memory.
> 
> This is quite unexpected because the code obviously cannot handle the
> first memory section. Could you paste /proc/zoneinfo and
> grep . -r /sys/devices/system/memory/auto_online_blocks/memory*, after
> onlining for both patched and unpatched kernels?

Btw. how do you test this? I am really surprised you managed to
hotremove such a low pfn range.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs