linux-kernel - Re: [Patch 002/002] Create/delete kmem_cache_node for SLUB on memory online callback

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 Oct 2007 10:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Linux Kernel ML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 002/002] Create/delete kmem_cache_node for SLUB on memory
 online callback

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Yasunori Goto wrote:

> > > +	down_read(&slub_lock);
> > > +	list_for_each_entry(s, &slab_caches, list) {
> > > +		local_node = page_to_nid(virt_to_page(s));
> > > +		if (local_node == offline_node)
> > > +			/* This slub is on the offline node. */
> > > +			return -EBUSY;
> > > +	}
> > > +	up_read(&slub_lock);
> > 
> > So this checks if the any kmem_cache structure is on the offlined node? If
> > so then we cannot offline the node?
> 
> Right. If slabs' migration is possible, here would be good place for
> doing it. But, it is not possible (at least now).

I think you can avoid this check. The kmem_cache structures are allocated 
from the kmalloc array. The check if the kmalloc slabs are empty will fail 
if kmem_cache structures still exist on the node.

> > > +			 * because the node is used by slub yet.
> > > +			 */
> > 
> > It may be clearer to say:
> > 
> > "If nr_slabs > 0 then slabs still exist on the node that is going down.
> > We were unable to free them so we must fail."
> 
> Again. If nr_slabs > 0, offline_pages must be fail due to slabs
> remaining on the node before. So, this callback isn't called.

Ok then we can remove these checks?

> > > +static int slab_mem_going_online_callback(void *arg)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct kmem_cache_node *n;
> > > +	struct kmem_cache *s;
> > > +	struct memory_notify *marg = arg;
> > > +	int nid = marg->status_change_nid;
> > > +
> > > +	/* If the node already has memory, then nothing is necessary. */
> > > +	if (nid < 0)
> > > +		return 0;
> > 
> > The node must have memory????  Or we have already brought up the code?
> 
> kmem_cache_node is created at boot time if the node has memory.
> (Or, it is created by this callback on first added memory on the node).
> 
> When nid = - 1, kmem_cache_node is created before this node due to
> node has memory. 

So the function can be called for a node that is already online?

> > > +	 * New memory will be onlined on the node which has no memory so far.
> > > +	 * New kmem_cache_node is necssary for it.
> > 
> > "We are bringing a node online. No memory is available yet. We must 
> > allocate a kmem_cache_node structure in order to bring the node online." ?
> 
> Your mention might be ok.
> But. I would like to prefer to define status of node hotplug for
> exactitude like followings
> 
> 
> A)Node online -- pgdat is created and can be accessed for this node.
>                  but there are no gurantee that cpu or memory is onlined.
>                  This status is very close from memory-less node.
>                  But this might be halfway status for node hotplug.
>                  Node online bit is set. But N_HIGH_MEMORY
>                  (or N_NORMAL_MEMORY) might be not set.

Ahh.. Okay.

> B)Node has memory--
>                  one or more sections memory is onlined on the node.
>                  N_HIGH_MEMORY (or N_NORMAL_MEMORY) is set.
> 
> If first memory is onlined on the node, the node status changes
> from A) to B).
> 
> I feel this is very useful to manage "halfway status" of node
> hotplug. (So, memory-less node patch is very helpful for me.)
> 
> So, I would like to avoid using the word "node online" at here.
> But, if above definition is messy for others, I'll change it.

Ok can we talk about this as

	node online

and

	node memory available?

-
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/