linux-kernel - Re: divide error in select_task_rq

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289570795.2814.23.camel@zim>
Date:	Fri, 12 Nov 2010 07:06:35 -0700
From:	Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...com>
To:	Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
	Nikhil Rao <ncrao@...gle.com>,
	Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjenties@...gle.com
Subject: Re: divide error in select_task_rq_fair()

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 11:52 +0530, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote:
> On Thursday 11 November 2010 23:58:04 Myron Stowe wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 07:17 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 04 novembre 2010 à 20:00 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas a écrit :
> > > > Is that going to help you debug the problem?  The solution is not going
> > > > to be something like "set NR_CPUS=x".  If NR_CPUS is too small, the
> > > > machine should still *boot*, even if we can't use all the CPUs in the
> > > > box.
> > >
> > > Yes, it will help to understand the layout of cpu / domains and make
> > > appropriate changes.
> > >
> > > Alternative is you send me such a machine :=)
> > 
> > I opened a BZ on this issue as it seems to be a regression -
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22662
> > 
> > I also, as indicated in the BZ, bisected the kernel which gave the
> > following results and reverting 50f2d7f682f9c0ed58191d0982fe77888d59d162
> > did re-enable booting on the box in question (an HP dl980g7).  Let me
> > know what further info you need or patches to test for debugging this.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > commit 50f2d7f682f9c0ed58191d0982fe77888d59d162
> > Author: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
> > Date:   Thu Sep 30 17:34:10 2010 +0530
> > 
> >     x86, numa: Assign CPUs to nodes in round-robin manner on fake NUMA
> > 
> >     commit d9c2d5ac6af87b4491bff107113aaf16f6c2b2d9 "x86, numa: Use
> >  near(er) online node instead of roundrobin for NUMA" changed NUMA
> >  initialization on Intel to choose the nearest online node or first node. 
> >  Fake NUMA would be better of with round-robin initialization, instead of
> >  the all CPUS on first node.  Change the choice of first node, back to
> >  round-robin.
> > 
> >     For testing NUMA kernel behaviour without cpusets and NUMA aware
> >     applications, it would be better to have cpus in different nodes,
> >  rather than all in a single node.  With cpusets migration of tasks
> >  scenarios cannot not be tested.
> > 
> >     I guess having it round-robin shouldn't affect the use cases for all
> >  cpus on the first node.
> > 
> >     The code comments in arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c:759 indicate that this used
> >  to be the case, which was changed by commit d9c2d5ac6.  It changed from
> >  roundrobin to nearer or first node.  And I couldn't find any reason for
> >  this change in its changelog.
> > 
> >     Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
> >     Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> >     Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > 
> > > Thanks
> > 
> 
> Can you try with this patch?

Hi Nikanth:

I won't be working today - I'm taking my daughter for a college campus
visit (she is a senior in High School this year) - but I will try out
this patch this weekend and get back to you with the results.

Myron

> 
> Thanks
> Nikanth
> 
> Fallback to first node, if the node is not online.
> 
> Fixes regression of commit 50f2d7f682f9c0ed58191d0982fe77888d59d162
> x86, numa: Assign CPUs to nodes in round-robin manner on fake NUMA
> 
> When some of the NUMA nodes are disabled, and the CPUs are assigned
> in round-robin fashion, CPUs might be assigned to disabled nodes
> resulting in the crash. While using round-robin assignment, check if the
> node is online. If the node is not online, use the first online node.
> 
> Reported-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
> Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
> 
> ---
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> index d16c2c5..f31237c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> @@ -287,6 +287,8 @@ static void __cpuinit srat_detect_node(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>  	if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE || !node_online(node)) {
>  		/* reuse the value from init_cpu_to_node() */
>  		node = cpu_to_node(cpu);
> +		if (!node_online(node))
> +			node = first_node(node_online_map);
>  	}
>  	numa_set_node(cpu, node);
>  #endif
> 


-- 
Myron Stowe                             Linux Kernel Developer
Fort Collins, CO                        Office of Corporate Strategy and Technology

--
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/