| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAFgQCTtFZ8ku7W_7rcmrbmH4Qvsv7zgOSHKfPSpNSkVjYkPfBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:04:01 +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 Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:37 PM Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 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);
Just have some opinion on this. Here is two issue. First, is this node
online? I do not see node_set_online() is called in this patch.
Second, if node is online here, then init_memory_less_node->
free_area_init_node is called duplicated when free_area_init_nodes().
This should be a critical design issue.
Thanks,
Pingfan
> > + 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists