linux-kernel - Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51302481.9070005@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:46:09 +0800
From:	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Don Morris <don.morris@...com>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...el.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>,
	Lin Feng <linfeng@...fujitsu.com>,
	"guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com" <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	Gui jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node!

Hi Linus,

Please refer to the attached patch.

This patch everts only the following two patches.

	commit 01a178a94e8eaec351b29ee49fbb3d1c124cb7fb
		acpi, memory-hotplug: support getting hotplug info from SRAT
	commit e8d1955258091e4c92d5a975ebd7fd8a98f5d30f
		acpi, memory-hotplug: parse SRAT before memblock is ready

Without these two patches, users can use "movablemem_map=nn[KMG]@ss[KMG]"
correctly, and cause no problem.

And of course, the kernel will work as before if users don't use
"movablemem_map=nn[KMG]@ss[KMG]".

I do hope we can keep "movablemem_map=nn[KMG]@ss[KMG]" in 3.9.


We are working on fixing the SRAT problems, and we aims to push SRAT related
patches in 3.10. And we will also improve "movablemem_map=nn[KMG]@ss[KMG]"
functionality consistently in the future.

Thanks. :)

On 03/01/2013 11:13 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>  wrote:
>>
>> So I'm thinking that the best approach here is to revert everything and
>> then try again for 3.10-rc1.  This gives people time to test the code
>> while it's only in linux-next.  (Hint!)
>
> I'd prefer to revert too by now - the bug seems to be known, and
> apparently it's not a trivial fix. We're getting close to the end of
> the merge window, and it's still being discussed, it clearly wasn't
> really fully cooked.
>
> Can we agree on some minimal set of reverts? Can somebody send me a
> patch with the revert and the commit explanation for the revert?
> Yinghai? Or I can do the reverts too if just the exact set of commits
> is clear, but I'd rather get it from somebody who sees and understand
> the problem, and can test the state afterwards..
>
>                 Linus
>

View attachment "0001-x86-ACPI-mm-Revert-SRAT-support-from-movablemem_map-.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (14889 bytes)