linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] slub: Avoid trying to allocate memory on offline nodes

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]

Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2018 22:12:52 -0500
From:   Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
To:     Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com,
        vbabka@...e.cz, Punit.Agrawal@....com, Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] slub: Avoid trying to allocate memory on offline nodes

Hi,

On 08/02/2018 09:23 AM, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> 
>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>> index 51258eff4178..e03719bac1e2 100644
>> --- a/mm/slub.c
>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
>> @@ -2519,6 +2519,8 @@ static void *___slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags, int node,
>>   		if (unlikely(!node_match(page, searchnode))) {
>>   			stat(s, ALLOC_NODE_MISMATCH);
>>   			deactivate_slab(s, page, c->freelist, c);
>> +			if (!node_online(searchnode))
>> +				node = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>>   			goto new_slab;
>>   		}
>>   	}
>>
> 
> Would it not be better to implement this check in the page allocator?
> There is also the issue of how to fallback to the nearest node.

Possibly? Falling back to the nearest node though, should be handled if 
memory-less nodes is enabled, which in the problematic case isn't.

> 
> NUMA_NO_NODE should fallback to the current memory allocation policy but
> it seems by inserting it here you would end up just with the default node
> for the processor.

I picked this spot (compared to 2/2) because a number of paths are 
funneling through here, and in this case it shouldn't be a very hot path.