| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:37:35 +0800
From: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
To: mhocko@...nel.org
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/alloc: fallback to first node if the wanted node offline
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 7:53 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed 12-12-18 16:31:35, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:37 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > [...]
> > >
> > > In other words. Does the following work? I am sorry to wildguess this
> > > way but I am not able to recreate your setups to play with this myself.
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> > > index 1308f5408bf7..d51643e10d00 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> > > @@ -216,8 +216,6 @@ static void __init alloc_node_data(int nid)
> > >
> > > node_data[nid] = nd;
> > > memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
> > > -
> > > - node_set_online(nid);
> > > }
> > >
> > > /**
> > > @@ -527,6 +525,19 @@ static void __init numa_clear_kernel_node_hotplug(void)
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void __init init_memory_less_node(int nid)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long zones_size[MAX_NR_ZONES] = {0};
> > > + unsigned long zholes_size[MAX_NR_ZONES] = {0};
> > > +
> > > + free_area_init_node(nid, zones_size, 0, zholes_size);
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * All zonelists will be built later in start_kernel() after per cpu
> > > + * areas are initialized.
> > > + */
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> > > {
> > > unsigned long uninitialized_var(pfn_align);
> > > @@ -570,7 +581,7 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > /* Finally register nodes. */
> > > - for_each_node_mask(nid, node_possible_map) {
> > > + for_each_node(nid) {
> > > u64 start = PFN_PHYS(max_pfn);
> > > u64 end = 0;
> > >
> > > @@ -592,6 +603,10 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > alloc_node_data(nid);
> > > + if (!end)
> >
> > Here comes the bug, since !end can not reach here.
>
> You are right. I am dumb. I've just completely missed that. Sigh.
> Anyway, I think the code is more complicated than necessary and we can
> simply drop the check. I do not think we really have to worry about
> the start overflowing end. So the end patch should look as follows.
> Btw. I believe it is better to pull alloc_node_data out of init_memory_less_node
> because a) there is no need to duplicate the call and moreover we want
> to pull node_set_online as well. The code also seems cleaner this way.
>
I have no strong opinion here.
> Thanks for your testing and your patience with me here.
Np.
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> index 1308f5408bf7..a5548fe668fb 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> @@ -216,8 +216,6 @@ static void __init alloc_node_data(int nid)
>
> node_data[nid] = nd;
> memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
> -
> - node_set_online(nid);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -527,6 +525,19 @@ static void __init numa_clear_kernel_node_hotplug(void)
> }
> }
>
> +static void __init init_memory_less_node(int nid)
> +{
> + unsigned long zones_size[MAX_NR_ZONES] = {0};
> + unsigned long zholes_size[MAX_NR_ZONES] = {0};
> +
> + free_area_init_node(nid, zones_size, 0, zholes_size);
> +
> + /*
> + * All zonelists will be built later in start_kernel() after per cpu
> + * areas are initialized.
> + */
> +}
> +
> static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> {
> unsigned long uninitialized_var(pfn_align);
> @@ -570,7 +581,7 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /* Finally register nodes. */
> - for_each_node_mask(nid, node_possible_map) {
> + for_each_node(nid) {
> u64 start = PFN_PHYS(max_pfn);
> u64 end = 0;
>
> @@ -581,9 +592,6 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> end = max(mi->blk[i].end, end);
> }
>
> - if (start >= end)
> - continue;
> -
> /*
> * Don't confuse VM with a node that doesn't have the
> * minimum amount of memory:
> @@ -592,6 +600,10 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> continue;
>
> alloc_node_data(nid);
> + if (!end)
> + init_memory_less_node(nid);
> + else
> + node_set_online(nid);
> }
>
> /* Dump memblock with node info and return. */
> @@ -721,21 +733,6 @@ void __init x86_numa_init(void)
> numa_init(dummy_numa_init);
> }
>
> -static void __init init_memory_less_node(int nid)
> -{
> - unsigned long zones_size[MAX_NR_ZONES] = {0};
> - unsigned long zholes_size[MAX_NR_ZONES] = {0};
> -
> - /* Allocate and initialize node data. Memory-less node is now online.*/
> - alloc_node_data(nid);
> - free_area_init_node(nid, zones_size, 0, zholes_size);
> -
> - /*
> - * All zonelists will be built later in start_kernel() after per cpu
> - * areas are initialized.
> - */
> -}
> -
> /*
> * Setup early cpu_to_node.
> *
> @@ -763,9 +760,6 @@ void __init init_cpu_to_node(void)
> if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> continue;
>
> - if (!node_online(node))
> - init_memory_less_node(node);
> -
> numa_set_node(cpu, node);
> }
> }
> --
Regret, it still has bug, and I got panic. Attached log.
Thanks,
Pingfan
View attachment "1213.txt" of type "text/plain" (22233 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists