linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/21] memblock: refactor internal allocation functions

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: <20190203100428.GB8620@rapoport-lnx>
Date:   Sun, 3 Feb 2019 12:04:28 +0200
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Guan Xuetao <gxt@....edu.cn>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-c6x-dev@...ux-c6x.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        uclinux-h8-devel@...ts.sourceforge.jp, x86@...nel.org,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/21] memblock: refactor internal allocation functions

On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 08:39:20PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > Currently, memblock has several internal functions with overlapping
> > functionality. They all call memblock_find_in_range_node() to find free
> > memory and then reserve the allocated range and mark it with kmemleak.
> > However, there is difference in the allocation constraints and in fallback
> > strategies.
> >
> > The allocations returning physical address first attempt to find free
> > memory on the specified node within mirrored memory regions, then retry on
> > the same node without the requirement for memory mirroring and finally fall
> > back to all available memory.
> >
> > The allocations returning virtual address start with clamping the allowed
> > range to memblock.current_limit, attempt to allocate from the specified
> > node from regions with mirroring and with user defined minimal address. If
> > such allocation fails, next attempt is done with node restriction lifted.
> > Next, the allocation is retried with minimal address reset to zero and at
> > last without the requirement for mirrored regions.
> >
> > Let's consolidate various fallbacks handling and make them more consistent
> > for physical and virtual variants. Most of the fallback handling is moved
> > to memblock_alloc_range_nid() and it now handles node and mirror fallbacks.
> >
> > The memblock_alloc_internal() uses memblock_alloc_range_nid() to get a
> > physical address of the allocated range and converts it to virtual address.
> >
> > The fallback for allocation below the specified minimal address remains in
> > memblock_alloc_internal() because memblock_alloc_range_nid() is used by CMA
> > with exact requirement for lower bounds.
> 
> This is causing problems on some of my machines.
> 
> I see NODE_DATA allocations falling back to node 0 when they shouldn't,
> or didn't previously.
> 
> eg, before:
> 
> 57990190: (116011251): numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0xfffe4980-0xfffebfff]
> 58152042: (116373087): numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0x8fff90980-0x8fff97fff]
> 
> after:
> 
> 16356872061562: (6296877055): numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0xfffe4980-0xfffebfff]
> 16356872079279: (6296894772): numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0xfffcd300-0xfffd497f]
> 16356872096376: (6296911869): numa:     NODE_DATA(1) on node 0
> 
> 
> On some of my other systems it does that, and then panics because it
> can't allocate anything at all:
> 
> [    0.000000] numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0x7ffcaee80-0x7ffcb3fff]
> [    0.000000] numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0x7ffc99d00-0x7ffc9ee7f]
> [    0.000000] numa:     NODE_DATA(1) on node 0
> [    0.000000] Kernel panic - not syncing: Cannot allocate 20864 bytes for node 16 data
> [    0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.0.0-rc4-gccN-next-20190201-gdc4c899 #1
> [    0.000000] Call Trace:
> [    0.000000] [c0000000011cfca0] [c000000000c11044] dump_stack+0xe8/0x164 (unreliable)
> [    0.000000] [c0000000011cfcf0] [c0000000000fdd6c] panic+0x17c/0x3e0
> [    0.000000] [c0000000011cfd90] [c000000000f61bc8] initmem_init+0x128/0x260
> [    0.000000] [c0000000011cfe60] [c000000000f57940] setup_arch+0x398/0x418
> [    0.000000] [c0000000011cfee0] [c000000000f50a94] start_kernel+0xa0/0x684
> [    0.000000] [c0000000011cff90] [c00000000000af70] start_here_common+0x1c/0x52c
> [    0.000000] Rebooting in 180 seconds..
> 
> 
> So there's something going wrong there, I haven't had time to dig into
> it though (Sunday night here).

I'll try to see if I can reproduce it with qemu.
 
> cheers
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.