linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: fix node_possible

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]

Message-ID: <4A08AE22.1060901@kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 11 May 2009 16:00:50 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: fix node_possible_map logic -v2

David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2009, Jack Steiner wrote:
> 
>> Cpus also belong to nodes. The cpu_to_node_map[] provides the mapping.
>> I have not tried it, but I wonder what happens if you offline all of the
>> memory of a node (probably not possible so this may be hypothetical for now).
>> Should offlining all node memory change the node that a cpu on the node
>> are associated with? That does not seem right.
>>
> 
> No, it would simply become a memoryless node and NODE_DATA() should 
> probably be freed or just represent spanned_pages of 0.
> 
> Memoryless node support has already been merged (and needs to be fixed), 
> but the same toplogies could be represented with memory-only nodes which 
> may have been a better approach considering your point about memory 
> offline and our lack of node hot-remove.
> 
>> Agree. FWIW, it works ok in 2.6.27. I need to bisect to find where the regression
>> occurred.
>>
> 
> I'm not so sure it will help to identify which patch caused the issue, it 
> depends on whether we want to support memoryless nodes or not and then 
> address the issues as they arise when there is no memory attached, which 
> you've done in this case.
> 
> We can fix your particular issue by deciding how node_online_map and its 
> superset, node_possible_map, are handled for memoryless nodes.  Such users 
> need to iterate over N_NORMAL_MEMORY instead.

not sure his problem. it seems 2.6.28, 29, 30 all don't work for him.

and current tip works on all my test systems with node that does have mem.

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/