| 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: <4D5729A7.7070706@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:45:27 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, brgerst@...il.com,
gorcunov@...il.com, shaohui.zheng@...el.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify the rest of memblk registration
On 02/12/2011 09:10 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Move the remaining memblk registration logic from acpi_scan_nodes() to
> numa_register_memblks() and initmem_init().
>
> This applies nodes_cover_memory() sanity check, memory node sorting
> and node_online() checking, which were only applied to acpi, to all
> init methods.
>
> As all memblk registration is moved to common code, active range
> clearing is moved to initmem_init() too and removed from bad_srat().
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
> Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
> Cc: Shaohui Zheng <shaohui.zheng@...el.com>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/amdtopology_64.c | 6 ---
> arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c | 59 ----------------------------------
> 3 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/amdtopology_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/amdtopology_64.c
> index 48ec374..9c9f46a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/amdtopology_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/amdtopology_64.c
> @@ -262,11 +262,5 @@ void __init amd_fake_nodes(const struct bootnode *nodes, int nr_nodes)
>
> int __init amd_scan_nodes(void)
> {
> - int i;
> -
> - for_each_node_mask(i, node_possible_map)
> - setup_node_bootmem(i, numa_nodes[i].start, numa_nodes[i].end);
> -
> - numa_init_array();
> return 0;
> }
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
> index 2e2ca94..062649d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
> @@ -287,6 +287,37 @@ setup_node_bootmem(int nodeid, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> node_set_online(nodeid);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Sanity check to catch more bad NUMA configurations (they are amazingly
> + * common). Make sure the nodes cover all memory.
> + */
> +static int __init nodes_cover_memory(const struct bootnode *nodes)
> +{
> + unsigned long numaram, e820ram;
> + int i;
> +
> + numaram = 0;
> + for_each_node_mask(i, mem_nodes_parsed) {
> + unsigned long s = nodes[i].start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + unsigned long e = nodes[i].end >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + numaram += e - s;
> + numaram -= __absent_pages_in_range(i, s, e);
> + if ((long)numaram < 0)
> + numaram = 0;
> + }
> +
> + e820ram = max_pfn -
> + (memblock_x86_hole_size(0, max_pfn<<PAGE_SHIFT) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> + /* We seem to lose 3 pages somewhere. Allow 1M of slack. */
> + if ((long)(e820ram - numaram) >= (1<<(20 - PAGE_SHIFT))) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "NUMA: nodes only cover %luMB of your %luMB e820 RAM. Not used.\n",
> + (numaram << PAGE_SHIFT) >> 20,
> + (e820ram << PAGE_SHIFT) >> 20);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
> static int __init numa_register_memblks(void)
> {
> int i;
> @@ -349,6 +380,25 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(void)
> memblock_x86_register_active_regions(memblk_nodeid[i],
> node_memblk_range[i].start >> PAGE_SHIFT,
> node_memblk_range[i].end >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> +
> + /* for out of order entries */
> + sort_node_map();
> + if (!nodes_cover_memory(numa_nodes))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* Finally register nodes. */
> + for_each_node_mask(i, node_possible_map)
> + setup_node_bootmem(i, numa_nodes[i].start, numa_nodes[i].end);
> +
> + /*
> + * Try again in case setup_node_bootmem missed one due to missing
> + * bootmem.
> + */
> + for_each_node_mask(i, node_possible_map)
> + if (!node_online(i))
> + setup_node_bootmem(i, numa_nodes[i].start,
> + numa_nodes[i].end);
> +
> return 0;
> }
please don't put setup_node_bootmem calling into numa_register_memblks()
that is not related.
put the calling in initmem_init() directly is more reasonable.
>
> @@ -713,15 +763,14 @@ static int dummy_numa_init(void)
> node_set(0, cpu_nodes_parsed);
> node_set(0, mem_nodes_parsed);
> numa_add_memblk(0, 0, (u64)max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT);
> + numa_nodes[0].start = 0;
> + numa_nodes[0].end = (u64)max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> static int dummy_scan_nodes(void)
> {
> - setup_node_bootmem(0, 0, max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT);
> - numa_init_array();
> -
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -757,6 +806,7 @@ void __init initmem_init(void)
> memset(node_memblk_range, 0, sizeof(node_memblk_range));
> memset(memblk_nodeid, 0, sizeof(memblk_nodeid));
> memset(numa_nodes, 0, sizeof(numa_nodes));
> + remove_all_active_ranges();
>
> if (numa_init[i]() < 0)
> continue;
> @@ -781,8 +831,19 @@ void __init initmem_init(void)
> if (numa_register_memblks() < 0)
> continue;
>
> - if (!scan_nodes[i]())
> - return;
> + if (scan_nodes[i]() < 0)
> + continue;
> +
> + for (j = 0; j < nr_cpu_ids; j++) {
> + int nid = early_cpu_to_node(j);
> +
> + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> + continue;
> + if (!node_online(nid))
> + numa_clear_node(j);
> + }
> + numa_init_array();
> + return;
> }
> BUG();
> }
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c
> index 755d157..4a2c33b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c
> @@ -44,7 +44,6 @@ static __init void bad_srat(void)
> numa_nodes[i].start = numa_nodes[i].end = 0;
> nodes_add[i].start = nodes_add[i].end = 0;
> }
> - remove_all_active_ranges();
> }
>
> static __init inline int srat_disabled(void)
> @@ -259,35 +258,6 @@ acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
> update_nodes_add(node, start, end);
> }
>
> -/* Sanity check to catch more bad SRATs (they are amazingly common).
> - Make sure the PXMs cover all memory. */
> -static int __init nodes_cover_memory(const struct bootnode *nodes)
> -{
> - int i;
> - unsigned long pxmram, e820ram;
> -
> - pxmram = 0;
> - for_each_node_mask(i, mem_nodes_parsed) {
> - unsigned long s = nodes[i].start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> - unsigned long e = nodes[i].end >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> - pxmram += e - s;
> - pxmram -= __absent_pages_in_range(i, s, e);
> - if ((long)pxmram < 0)
> - pxmram = 0;
> - }
> -
> - e820ram = max_pfn - (memblock_x86_hole_size(0, max_pfn<<PAGE_SHIFT)>>PAGE_SHIFT);
> - /* We seem to lose 3 pages somewhere. Allow 1M of slack. */
> - if ((long)(e820ram - pxmram) >= (1<<(20 - PAGE_SHIFT))) {
> - printk(KERN_ERR
> - "SRAT: PXMs only cover %luMB of your %luMB e820 RAM. Not used.\n",
> - (pxmram << PAGE_SHIFT) >> 20,
> - (e820ram << PAGE_SHIFT) >> 20);
> - return 0;
> - }
> - return 1;
> -}
> -
> void __init acpi_numa_arch_fixup(void) {}
>
> int __init x86_acpi_numa_init(void)
> @@ -303,37 +273,8 @@ int __init x86_acpi_numa_init(void)
> /* Use the information discovered above to actually set up the nodes. */
> int __init acpi_scan_nodes(void)
> {
> - int i;
> -
> if (acpi_numa <= 0)
> return -1;
> -
> - /* for out of order entries in SRAT */
> - sort_node_map();
> - if (!nodes_cover_memory(numa_nodes)) {
> - bad_srat();
> - return -1;
> - }
> -
> - /* Finally register nodes */
> - for_each_node_mask(i, node_possible_map)
> - setup_node_bootmem(i, numa_nodes[i].start, numa_nodes[i].end);
> - /* Try again in case setup_node_bootmem missed one due
> - to missing bootmem */
> - for_each_node_mask(i, node_possible_map)
> - if (!node_online(i))
> - setup_node_bootmem(i, numa_nodes[i].start,
> - numa_nodes[i].end);
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < nr_cpu_ids; i++) {
> - int node = early_cpu_to_node(i);
> -
> - if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> - continue;
> - if (!node_online(node))
> - numa_clear_node(i);
> - }
> - numa_init_array();
> return 0;
> }
>
--
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