| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <86802c440804281255n3926fe53r4015ff03c355d2d9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:55:13 -0700
From: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
To: "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@...urebad.de>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: node-setup agnostic free_bootmem()
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de> wrote:
> > Hi Yinghai,
> >
> >
> >
> > "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> * Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > > so i very much agree that your changes are cleaner, i just wanted to
> > >> > > have one that has all the fixes included.
> > >> >
> > >> > I had planned this to be another patch because there are more then one
> > >> > boundary check I wanted to tighten. I can merge them though if you
> > >> > like.
> > >>
> > >> no, better to have them in separate patches.
> > >>
> > >> > > Would you like to post a patch against current -git or should i
> > >> > > extract the cleaner reserve_bootmem() from your previous patch?
> > >> >
> > >> > I just moved and have only sporadic internet access and free time
> > >> > slots available. Would be nice if you could do it!
> > >>
> > >> sure, find the merged patch below, against latest -git, boot-tested on
> > >> x86. Is this what you had in mind?
> > >>
> > >> Ingo
> > >>
> > >> ---------------->
> > >> Subject: mm: node-setup agnostic free_bootmem()
> > >> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
> > >> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:36:31 +0200
> > >>
> > >> Make free_bootmem() look up the node holding the specified address
> > >> range which lets it work transparently on single-node and multi-node
> > >> configurations.
> > >>
> > >> If the address range exceeds the node range, it well be marked free
> > >> across node boundaries, too.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
> > >> CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
> > >> CC: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
> > >> CC: Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>
> > >> CC: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > >> CC: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
> > >> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > >> ---
> > >> mm/bootmem.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > >> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> Index: linux-x86.q/mm/bootmem.c
> > >> ===================================================================
> > >> --- linux-x86.q.orig/mm/bootmem.c
> > >> +++ linux-x86.q/mm/bootmem.c
> > >> @@ -493,8 +493,31 @@ int __init reserve_bootmem(unsigned long
> > >> void __init free_bootmem(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
> > >> {
> > >> bootmem_data_t *bdata;
> > >> - list_for_each_entry(bdata, &bdata_list, list)
> > >> - free_bootmem_core(bdata, addr, size);
> > >> + unsigned long pos = addr;
> > >> + unsigned long partsize = size;
> > >> +
> > >> + list_for_each_entry(bdata, &bdata_list, list) {
> > >> + unsigned long remainder = 0;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (pos < bdata->node_boot_start)
> > >> + continue;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (PFN_DOWN(pos + partsize) > bdata->node_low_pfn) {
> > >> + remainder = PFN_DOWN(pos + partsize) - bdata->node_low_pfn;
> > >> + partsize -= remainder;
> > >> + }
> > >> +
> > >> + free_bootmem_core(bdata, pos, partsize);
> > >> +
> > >> + if (!remainder)
> > >> + return;
> > >> +
> > >> + pos = PFN_PHYS(bdata->node_low_pfn + 1);
> > >> + }
> > >> + printk(KERN_ERR "free_bootmem: request: addr=%lx, size=%lx, "
> > >> + "state: pos=%lx, partsize=%lx\n", addr, size,
> > >> + pos, partsize);
> > >> + BUG();
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> unsigned long __init free_all_bootmem(void)
> > >>
> > >
> > > it will not work with cross nodes.
> > >
> > > for example: node 0: 0-2g, 4-6g, node1: 2-4g, 6-8g.
> > > and if ramdisk sit cross 2G boundary. you will only free the range
> > > before 2g.
> >
> > Yes, you stated that several times but this is not a technical argument:
> > These setups are afaik not yet supported by the kernel at all. And you
> > could not explain the node layout with the patch that implements support
> > for these configurations.
>
> I looked at Suresh's patch, and it still only has one bdata for one node.
Suresh's patch already in the Linus tree.
commit 6ec6e0d9f2fd7cb6ca6bc3bfab5ae7b5cdd8c36f
Author: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Date: Tue Mar 25 10:14:35 2008 -0700
srat, x86: add support for nodes spanning other nodes
For example, If the physical address layout on a two node system with 8 GB
memory is something like:
node 0: 0-2GB, 4-6GB
node 1: 2-4GB, 6-8GB
Current kernels fail to boot/detect this NUMA topology.
ACPI SRAT tables can expose such a topology which needs to be supported.
Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
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