linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm: use numa_mem_id() in alloc_pages

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <55C305F5.8050005@suse.cz>
Date:	Thu, 6 Aug 2015 09:00:05 +0200
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	cbe-oss-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm: use numa_mem_id() in alloc_pages_node()

On 07/30/2015 07:41 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 06:34:31PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> numa_mem_id() is able to handle allocation from CPUs on memory-less nodes,
>> so it's a more robust fallback than the currently used numa_node_id().
>
> Won't it fall through to the next closest memory node in the zonelist
> anyway?

Right, I would expect the zonelist of memoryless node to be the same as 
of the closest node. Documentation/vm/numa seems to agree.

Is this for callers doing NUMA_NO_NODE with __GFP_THISZONE?

I guess that's the only scenario where that matters, yeah. And there 
might well be no such caller now, but maybe some will sneak in without 
the author testing on a system with memoryless node.

Note that with !CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES, numa_mem_id() just does 
numa_node_id().

So yeah I think "a more robust fallback" is correct :) But let's put it 
explicitly in changelog then:

----8<----

alloc_pages_node() might fail when called with NUMA_NO_NODE and 
__GFP_THISNODE on a CPU belonging to a memoryless node. To make the 
local-node fallback more robust and prevent such situations, use 
numa_mem_id(), which was introduced for similar scenarios in the slab 
context.
--
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/