linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] mm, page_alloc: fix incorrect zone

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: <20161220142845.drbedcibjcggdxk7@techsingularity.net>
Date:   Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:28:45 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jia He <hejianet@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] mm, page_alloc: fix incorrect zone_statistics
 data

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 02:26:43PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 20-12-16 13:10:40, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:18:14AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 12-12-16 13:59:07, Jia He wrote:
> > > > In commit b9f00e147f27 ("mm, page_alloc: reduce branches in
> > > > zone_statistics"), it reconstructed codes to reduce the branch miss rate.
> > > > Compared with the original logic, it assumed if !(flag & __GFP_OTHER_NODE)
> > > >  z->node would not be equal to preferred_zone->node. That seems to be
> > > > incorrect.
> > > 
> > > I am sorry but I have hard time following the changelog. It is clear
> > > that you are trying to fix a missed NUMA_{HIT,OTHER} accounting
> > > but it is not really clear when such thing happens. You are adding
> > > preferred_zone->node check. preferred_zone is the first zone in the
> > > requested zonelist. So for the most allocations it is a node from the
> > > local node. But if something request an explicit numa node (without
> > > __GFP_OTHER_NODE which would be the majority I suspect) then we could
> > > indeed end up accounting that as a NUMA_MISS, NUMA_FOREIGN so the
> > > referenced patch indeed caused an unintended change of accounting AFAIU.
> > > 
> > 
> > This is a similar concern to what I had. If the preferred zone, which is
> > the first valid usable zone, is not a "hit" for the statistics then I
> > don't know what "hit" is meant to mean.
> 
> But the first valid usable zone is defined based on the requested numa
> node. Unless the requested node is memoryless then we should have a hit,
> no?
> 

Should be. If the local node is memoryless then there would be a difference
between hit and whether it's local or not but that to me is a little
useless. A local vs remote page allocated has a specific meaning and
consequence. It's hard to see how hit can be meaningfully interpreted if
there are memoryless nodes. I don't have a strong objection to the patch
so I didn't nak it, I'm just not convinced it matters.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs