| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:22:26 -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 Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:50 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> writes:
>
> > 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>
>
> Okay, so we have one bdata for node 0 and one for node 1. Does that mean
> that both have overlapping pfn ranges?
>
> [1 ||||| ]
> [2 ||||| ]
>
> Like this? How are the ||||| represented in the bootmem maps of each bdata?
Yes.
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