| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20161209161748.821412844@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 17:18:03 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Tai <thomas.tai@...cle.com>,
Chris Hyser <chris.hyser@...cle.com>,
Liam Merwick <liam.merwick@...cle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH 4.4 21/28] sparc64: Fix find_node warning if numa node cannot be found
4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Thomas Tai <thomas.tai@...cle.com>
[ Upstream commit 74a5ed5c4f692df2ff0a2313ea71e81243525519 ]
When booting up LDOM, find_node() warns that a physical address
doesn't match a NUMA node.
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c:835
find_node+0xf4/0x120 find_node: A physical address doesn't
match a NUMA node rule. Some physical memory will be
owned by node 0.Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.9.0-rc3 #4
Call Trace:
[0000000000468ba0] __warn+0xc0/0xe0
[0000000000468c74] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x34/0x60
[00000000004592f4] find_node+0xf4/0x120
[0000000000dd0774] add_node_ranges+0x38/0xe4
[0000000000dd0b1c] numa_parse_mdesc+0x268/0x2e4
[0000000000dd0e9c] bootmem_init+0xb8/0x160
[0000000000dd174c] paging_init+0x808/0x8fc
[0000000000dcb0d0] setup_arch+0x2c8/0x2f0
[0000000000dc68a0] start_kernel+0x48/0x424
[0000000000dcb374] start_early_boot+0x27c/0x28c
[0000000000a32c08] tlb_fixup_done+0x4c/0x64
[0000000000027f08] 0x27f08
It is because linux use an internal structure node_masks[] to
keep the best memory latency node only. However, LDOM mdesc can
contain single latency-group with multiple memory latency nodes.
If the address doesn't match the best latency node within
node_masks[], it should check for an alternative via mdesc.
The warning message should only be printed if the address
doesn't match any node_masks[] nor within mdesc. To minimize
the impact of searching mdesc every time, the last matched
mask and index is stored in a variable.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Tai <thomas.tai@...cle.com>
Reviewed-by: Chris Hyser <chris.hyser@...cle.com>
Reviewed-by: Liam Merwick <liam.merwick@...cle.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c
@@ -800,6 +800,8 @@ struct mdesc_mblock {
};
static struct mdesc_mblock *mblocks;
static int num_mblocks;
+static int find_numa_node_for_addr(unsigned long pa,
+ struct node_mem_mask *pnode_mask);
static unsigned long ra_to_pa(unsigned long addr)
{
@@ -819,6 +821,9 @@ static unsigned long ra_to_pa(unsigned l
static int find_node(unsigned long addr)
{
+ static bool search_mdesc = true;
+ static struct node_mem_mask last_mem_mask = { ~0UL, ~0UL };
+ static int last_index;
int i;
addr = ra_to_pa(addr);
@@ -828,10 +833,27 @@ static int find_node(unsigned long addr)
if ((addr & p->mask) == p->val)
return i;
}
- /* The following condition has been observed on LDOM guests.*/
- WARN_ONCE(1, "find_node: A physical address doesn't match a NUMA node"
- " rule. Some physical memory will be owned by node 0.");
- return 0;
+ /* The following condition has been observed on LDOM guests because
+ * node_masks only contains the best latency mask and value.
+ * LDOM guest's mdesc can contain a single latency group to
+ * cover multiple address range. Print warning message only if the
+ * address cannot be found in node_masks nor mdesc.
+ */
+ if ((search_mdesc) &&
+ ((addr & last_mem_mask.mask) != last_mem_mask.val)) {
+ /* find the available node in the mdesc */
+ last_index = find_numa_node_for_addr(addr, &last_mem_mask);
+ numadbg("find_node: latency group for address 0x%lx is %d\n",
+ addr, last_index);
+ if ((last_index < 0) || (last_index >= num_node_masks)) {
+ /* WARN_ONCE() and use default group 0 */
+ WARN_ONCE(1, "find_node: A physical address doesn't match a NUMA node rule. Some physical memory will be owned by node 0.");
+ search_mdesc = false;
+ last_index = 0;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return last_index;
}
static u64 memblock_nid_range(u64 start, u64 end, int *nid)
@@ -1158,6 +1180,41 @@ int __node_distance(int from, int to)
return numa_latency[from][to];
}
+static int find_numa_node_for_addr(unsigned long pa,
+ struct node_mem_mask *pnode_mask)
+{
+ struct mdesc_handle *md = mdesc_grab();
+ u64 node, arc;
+ int i = 0;
+
+ node = mdesc_node_by_name(md, MDESC_NODE_NULL, "latency-groups");
+ if (node == MDESC_NODE_NULL)
+ goto out;
+
+ mdesc_for_each_node_by_name(md, node, "group") {
+ mdesc_for_each_arc(arc, md, node, MDESC_ARC_TYPE_FWD) {
+ u64 target = mdesc_arc_target(md, arc);
+ struct mdesc_mlgroup *m = find_mlgroup(target);
+
+ if (!m)
+ continue;
+ if ((pa & m->mask) == m->match) {
+ if (pnode_mask) {
+ pnode_mask->mask = m->mask;
+ pnode_mask->val = m->match;
+ }
+ mdesc_release(md);
+ return i;
+ }
+ }
+ i++;
+ }
+
+out:
+ mdesc_release(md);
+ return -1;
+}
+
static int find_best_numa_node_for_mlgroup(struct mdesc_mlgroup *grp)
{
int i;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists