linux-kernel - Re: [Part1 PATCH v5 00/22] x86, ACPI, numa: Parse numa info earlier

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: <51C7C258.8070906@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:51:52 +0800
From:	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	yinghai@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, trenn@...e.de,
	jiang.liu@...wei.com, wency@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, mgorman@...e.de,
	minchan@...nel.org, mina86@...a86.com, gong.chen@...ux.intel.com,
	vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com, lwoodman@...hat.com,
	riel@...hat.com, jweiner@...hat.com, prarit@...hat.com,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [Part1 PATCH v5 00/22] x86, ACPI, numa: Parse numa info earlier

On 06/22/2013 02:25 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 05:19:48PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
>>> * As memblock allocator can relocate itself.  There's no point in
>>>    avoiding setting NUMA node while parsing and registering NUMA
>>>    topology.  Just parse and register NUMA info and later tell it to
>>>    relocate itself out of hot-pluggable node.  A number of patches in
>>>    the series is doing this dancing - carefully reordering NUMA
>>>    probing.  No need to do that.  It's really fragile thing to do.
>>>
>>> * Once you get the above out of the way, I don't think there are a lot
>>>    of permanent allocations in the way before NUMA is initialized.
>>>    Re-order the remaining ones if that's cleaner to do.  If that gets
>>>    overly messy / fragile, copying them around or freeing and reloading
>>>    afterwards could be an option too.
>>
>> memblock allocator can relocate itself, but it cannot relocate the memory
>
> Hmmm... maybe I wasn't clear but that's the first bullet point above.
>
>> it allocated for users. There could be some pointers pointing to these
>> memory ranges. If we do the relocation, how to update these pointers ?
>
> And the second.  Can you please list what persistent areas are
> allocated before numa info is configured into memblock?  There

Hi tj,

My box is x86_64, and the memory layout is:
[    0.000000] SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x7fffffff]
[    0.000000] SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x100000000-0x307ffffff]
[    0.000000] SRAT: Node 1 PXM 2 [mem 0x308000000-0x587ffffff] Hot 
Pluggable
[    0.000000] SRAT: Node 2 PXM 3 [mem 0x588000000-0x7ffffffff] Hot 
Pluggable


I marked ranges reserved by memblock before we parse SRAT with flag 0x4.
There are about 14 ranges which is persistent after boot.

[    0.000000]  reserved[0x0]   [0x00000000000000-0x0000000000ffff], 
0x10000 bytes flags: 0x4
[    0.000000]  reserved[0x1]   [0x00000000093000-0x000000000fffff], 
0x6d000 bytes flags: 0x4
[    0.000000]  reserved[0x2]   [0x00000001000000-0x00000002a9afff], 
0x1a9b000 bytes flags: 0x4
[    0.000000]  reserved[0x3]   [0x00000030000000-0x00000037ffffff], 
0x8000000 bytes flags: 0x4
...
[    0.000000]  reserved[0x5]   [0x0000006da81000-0x0000006e46afff], 
0x9ea000 bytes flags: 0x4
[    0.000000]  reserved[0x6]   [0x0000006ed6a000-0x0000006f246fff], 
0x4dd000 bytes flags: 0x4
[    0.000000]  reserved[0x7]   [0x0000006f28a000-0x0000006f299fff], 
0x10000 bytes flags: 0x4
[    0.000000]  reserved[0x8]   [0x0000006f29c000-0x0000006fe91fff], 
0xbf6000 bytes flags: 0x4
[    0.000000]  reserved[0x9]   [0x00000070e92000-0x00000071d54fff], 
0xec3000 bytes flags: 0x4
[    0.000000]  reserved[0xa]   [0x00000071d5e000-0x00000072204fff], 
0x4a7000 bytes flags: 0x4
[    0.000000]  reserved[0xb]   [0x00000072220000-0x0000007222074f], 
0x750 bytes flags: 0x4
...
[    0.000000]  reserved[0xd]   [0x000000722bc000-0x000000722bc1cf], 
0x1d0 bytes flags: 0x4
[    0.000000]  reserved[0xe]   [0x00000072bd3000-0x00000076c8ffff], 
0x40bd000 bytes flags: 0x4
......
[    0.000000]  reserved[0x134] [0x000007fffdf000-0x000007ffffffff], 
0x21000 bytes flags: 0x4


Just for the readability:
                                 [0x00000308000000-0x00000587ffffff] 
    Hot Pluggable
                                 [0x00000588000000-0x000007ffffffff] 
    Hot Pluggable

Seeing from the dmesg, only the last one is in hotpluggable area. I need 
to go
through the code to find out what it is, and find a way to relocate it.

But I'm not sure if a box with a different SRAT will have different result.

I will send more info later.

Thanks. :)


> shouldn't be whole lot.  And, again, this type of information should
> have been available in the head message so that high-level discussion
> could take place right away.
>
> Thanks.
>

--
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/