linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] x86/numa_emulation: Fix uniform-split numa emulation

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, 25 Oct 2018 13:52:04 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, mingo@...hat.com
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/numa_emulation: Fix uniform-split numa emulation

On 10/25/18 1:26 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c
> @@ -400,9 +400,17 @@ void __init numa_emulation(struct numa_meminfo *numa_meminfo, int numa_dist_cnt)
>  		n = simple_strtoul(emu_cmdline, &emu_cmdline, 0);
>  		ret = -1;
>  		for_each_node_mask(i, physnode_mask) {
> +			/*
> +			 * The reason we pass in blk[0] is due to
> +			 * numa_remove_memblk_from() called by
> +			 * emu_setup_memblk() will delete entry 0
> +			 * and then move everything else up in the pi.blk
> +			 * array. Therefore we should always be looking
> +			 * at blk[0].
> +			 */
>  			ret = split_nodes_size_interleave_uniform(&ei, &pi,
> -					pi.blk[i].start, pi.blk[i].end, 0,
> -					n, &pi.blk[i], nid);
> +					pi.blk[0].start, pi.blk[0].end, 0,
> +					n, &pi.blk[0], nid);

So, has this *ever* worked on a multi-socket configuration?  Or has it
just never been run on a multi-socket configuration?

Either way, nice changelog, and nice comments.  I'd have some minor nits
if you have to respin it, but otherwise:

Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>