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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:32:30 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com> Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC Patch V1 00/30] Enable memoryless node on x86 platforms On 23.07.2014 [16:20:24 +0800], Jiang Liu wrote: > > > On 2014/7/22 1:57, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > On 21.07.2014 [10:41:59 -0700], Tony Luck wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nishanth Aravamudan > >> <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >>> It seems like the issue is the order of onlining of resources on a > >>> specific x86 platform? > >> > >> Yes. When we online a node the BIOS hits us with some ACPI hotplug events: > >> > >> First: Here are some new cpus > > > > Ok, so during this period, you might get some remote allocations. Do you > > know the topology of these CPUs? That is they belong to a > > (soon-to-exist) NUMA node? Can you online that currently offline NUMA > > node at this point (so that NODE_DATA()) resolves, etc.)? > Hi Nishanth, > We have method to get the NUMA information about the CPU, and > patch "[RFC Patch V1 30/30] x86, NUMA: Online node earlier when doing > CPU hot-addition" tries to solve this issue by onlining NUMA node > as early as possible. Actually we are trying to enable memoryless node > as you have suggested. Ok, it seems like you have two sets of patches then? One is to fix the NUMA information timing (30/30 only). The rest of the patches are general discussions about where cpu_to_mem() might be used instead of cpu_to_node(). However, based upon Tejun's feedback, it seems like rather than force all callers to use cpu_to_mem(), we should be looking at the core VM to ensure fallback is occuring appropriately when memoryless nodes are present. Do you have a specific situation, once you've applied 30/30, where kmalloc_node() leads to an Oops? Thanks, Nish -- 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