linux-kernel - [PATCH] kthread: ensure locality of task

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: <20140130230812.GA874@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:08:12 -0800
From:	Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: [PATCH] kthread: ensure locality of task_struct allocations

On 30.01.2014 [14:47:05 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > > Eric, did you try this when writing 207205a2ba26 ("kthread: NUMA aware 
> > > kthread_create_on_node()") or was it always numa_node_id() from the 
> > > beginning?
> > 
> > Hmm, I think I did not try this, its absolutely possible NUMA_NO_NODE
> > was better here.
> > 
> 
> Nishanth, could you change your patch to just return NUMA_NO_NODE for the 
> non-kthreadd case?

Something like the following?


In the presence of memoryless nodes, numa_node_id() will return the
current CPU's NUMA node, but that may not be where we expect to allocate
from memory from. Instead, we should rely on the fallback code in the
memory allocator itself, by using NUMA_NO_NODE. Also, when calling
kthread_create_on_node(), use the nearest node with memory to the cpu in
question, rather than the node it is running on.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc: Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>

---
Note that I haven't yet tested this change on the system that reproduce
the original problem yet.

diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
index b5ae3ee..9a130ec 100644
--- a/kernel/kthread.c
+++ b/kernel/kthread.c
@@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ int tsk_fork_get_node(struct task_struct *tsk)
 	if (tsk == kthreadd_task)
 		return tsk->pref_node_fork;
 #endif
-	return numa_node_id();
+	return NUMA_NO_NODE;
 }
 
 static void create_kthread(struct kthread_create_info *create)
@@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ struct task_struct *kthread_create_on_cpu(int (*threadfn)(void *data),
 {
 	struct task_struct *p;
 
-	p = kthread_create_on_node(threadfn, data, cpu_to_node(cpu), namefmt,
+	p = kthread_create_on_node(threadfn, data, cpu_to_mem(cpu), namefmt,
 				   cpu);
 	if (IS_ERR(p))
 		return p;

--
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/