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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:32:30 -0700
From:	Nishanth Aravamudan <>
To:	Jiang Liu <>
Cc:	Tony Luck <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Mel Gorman <>,
	David Rientjes <>,
	Mike Galbraith <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <>,
	"" <>,,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
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
> >> <> 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?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists