linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] slqb: Do not use DEFINE_PER

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: <20090921135733.GP12726@csn.ul.ie>
Date:	Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:57:33 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ibm.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] slqb: Do not use DEFINE_PER_CPU for per-node data

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:45:41PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Mel Gorman wrote:
> > This latter guess was close to the mark but not for the reasons I was
> > guessing. There isn't magic per-cpu-area-freeing going on. Once I examined
> > the implementation of per-cpu data, it was clear that the per-cpu areas for
> > the node IDs were never being allocated in the first place on PowerPC. It's
> > probable that this never worked but that it took a long time before SLQB
> > was run on a memoryless configuration.
> 
> Ah... okay, so node id was being used to access percpu memory but the
> id wasn't in cpu_possible_map.  Yeah, that will access weird places in
> between proper percpu areas. 

Indeed

> I never thought about that.  I'll add
> debug version of percpu access macros which check that the offset and
> cpu make sense so that things like this can be caught easier.
> 

It would not hurt. I consider the per-node usage model to be rare but
it's possible there are issues with CPU hotplug and per-cpu data lurking
around that such a debug patch might catch.

> As Pekka suggested, using MAX_NUMNODES seems more appropriate tho
> although it's suboptimal in that it would waste memory and more
> importantly not use node-local memory. :-(
> 

If the per-cpu macros are to be used for per-node data, it would need to
be generalised to encompass more IDs than what is in cpu_possible_map.
It depends on how much demand there is for per-node data and how much it
helps. I have no data on that.

> Sachin, does the hang you're seeing also disappear with Mel's patches?
> 

Sachin should be enjoying his holiday and I'm hogging his machine at the
moment.  However, I can report that with this patch applied as well as the
remote-free patch that the machine locks up after a random amount of time
has passed and doesn't respond to sysrq. Setting
CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_DETECTOR=y didn't help throw up an error. Will
enable a few other debug options related to stall detection and see does
it pop out.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/