[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86802c440803131522t3d038d39gbe8eb0d38ddcb634@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:22:39 -0700
From: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
To: "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
clameter@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Yasunori Goto" <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
"KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix boundary checking in free_bootmem_core
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:
> On Thursday 13 March 2008 02:22:40 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:11:41 -0700 "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > <looks at it>
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but I find the changelog very hard to amke sense of. I presently
> > > > have:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So call it when numa is enabled, we don't know which node have that
> > > > range. and make it more robust.
> > > >
> > > > Try to trim it to get valid sidx, and eidx.
> > > >
> > > > Could you please expand on this?
> > >
> > > please check following...
> > >
> >
> > Heaps better, thanks ;) Below is what I now have.
> >
> > (cc's people)
> >
> > Guys, could you please review this? Maybe test it a bit?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > From: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
> >
> > With numa enabled, some callers could have a range o fmemory on one node but
> > try to free that on other node. This can cause some pages to be freed
> > wrongly.
>
> Concrete examples?
>
> If that happens it's really just a problem that the bootmem API
> is wrong. I was always annoyed by the hardcoded NODE_DATA(0)s in
> free_bootmem.
>
> I would suggest if that happens you just fix free_bootmem to search
> for the correct node instead of hardcoding 0 and then eliminate
> free_bootmem_node() everywhere and replace it with free_bootmem()
>
> >
> > For example: when we try to allocate 128g boot ram early for gart/swiotlb, and
> > free that range later so gart/swiotlb can get some range afterwards.
>
> I'm confused by the example. AFAIK there is no memory freeing in either
> gart nor swiotlb. At least there wasn't until very recently.
For big system when numa=off or disabled, vmemmap will use 3.6g ram
when you have 256g. if you don't allocate the PMD continuous.
then i tried to reserve 64M or 128M RAM before that, and free that
before gart/switotble try to allloc_bootmem under 4g.
that patch will make the system without ram on node0 not happy.
because of free_bootmem is hardcoded to use node0.
>
>
> >
> > With this patch, we don't need to care which node holds the range, just loop
> > to call free_bootmem_node for all online nodes.
> >
> > This patch make free_bootmem_core() more robust by trimming the sidx and eidx
> > according the ram range that the node has.
>
> I think you should just kill free_bootmem_node() and replace it everywhere
> with your improved free_bootmem()
using phys_to_nid()? it seems we only have that on x86_64.
also there is assumpation that reserve_bootmem_node, reserver_bootmem
can not cross the nodes.
I want to remove that constrient too.
YH
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists