linux-kernel - Re: fd3e45436660 ("ACPI / NUMA: ia64: Parse all entries of SRAT memory affinity table")

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: <CAKTKpr5uPuZUHBnQtDwpGA_d=WTx_5O2SF_+WStO6OMVNe77QQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 18:07:16 +0530
From:   Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gklkml16@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        tiantao6@...wei.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fd3e45436660 ("ACPI / NUMA: ia64: Parse all entries of SRAT
 memory affinity table")

Hi Michal


On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed 11-04-18 12:48:32, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> Hi,
>> my attention was brought to the %subj commit and either I am missing
>> something or the patch is quite dubious. What is it actually trying to
>> fix? If a BIOS/FW provides more memblocks than the limit then we would
>> get misleading numa topology (numactl -H output) but is the situation
>> much better with it applied? Numa init code will refuse to init more
>> memblocks than the limit and falls back to dummy_numa_init (AFAICS)
>> which will break the topology again and numactl -H will have a
>> misleading output anyway.

IIRC, the MEMBLOCK beyond max limit getting dropped from visible
memory(partial drop from a node).
this patch removed any upper limit on memblocks and allowed to parse
all entries of SRAT.

>>
>> So why is the patch an improvement at all?
>
> ping? I would be tempted to simply revert the patch as a wrong fix.
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

thanks
Ganapat
sorry, somehow, i have missed your previous email