linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86, numa: Do not adjust start/end for early_node

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: <AANLkTikgR8vEhz3Hsmx96QqZw_gsLZetc3W_9evf3ufb@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:17:11 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86, numa: Do not adjust start/end for early_node_mem()

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 8:03 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
>> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
>> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
>> @@ -164,14 +164,9 @@ static void * __init early_node_mem(int
>>       unsigned long mem;
>>
>>       /*
>> -      * put it on high as possible
>> -      * something will go with NODE_DATA
>> +      * memblock find will follow top-down, so don't need to adjust
>> +      *   start anymore
>>        */
>> -     if (start < (MAX_DMA_PFN<<PAGE_SHIFT))
>> -             start = MAX_DMA_PFN<<PAGE_SHIFT;
>> -     if (start < (MAX_DMA32_PFN<<PAGE_SHIFT) &&
>> -         end > (MAX_DMA32_PFN<<PAGE_SHIFT))
>> -             start = MAX_DMA32_PFN<<PAGE_SHIFT;
>>       mem = memblock_x86_find_in_range_node(nodeid, start, end, size, align);
>>       if (mem != MEMBLOCK_ERROR)
>>               return __va(mem);
>>
>
> The old code guarantees that the range is from a single zone, and even
> though memblock may be top -> down, it seems like there would be
> configurations where this would still be an issue (perhaps simulating it
> with numa=fake for testing?) if it crosses the boundary.

memblock_x86_find_in_range_node() will go over with early_node_map[].
so it will always can get right on node allocation.

Thanks

Yinghai
--
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/