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: <48ea1d5d-ce40-aaad-b9fe-006488ed71dc@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:20:43 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] drivers/base/node.c: Simplify
 unregister_memory_block_under_nodes()

On 19.07.19 11:13, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 19-07-19 11:05:51, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 19.07.19 10:42, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 18-07-19 16:22:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> We don't allow to offline memory block devices that belong to multiple
>>>> numa nodes. Therefore, such devices can never get removed. It is
>>>> sufficient to process a single node when removing the memory block.
>>>>
>>>> Remember for each memory block if it belongs to no, a single, or mixed
>>>> nodes, so we can use that information to skip unregistering or print a
>>>> warning (essentially a safety net to catch BUGs).
>>>
>>> I do not really like NUMA_NO_NODE - 1 thing. This is yet another invalid
>>> node that is magic. Why should we even care? In other words why is this
>>> patch an improvement?
>>
>> Oh, and to answer that part of the question:
>>
>> We no longer have to iterate over each pfn of a memory block to be removed.
> 
> Is it possible that we are overzealous when unregistering syfs files and
> we should simply skip the pfn walk even without this change?
> 

I assume you mean something like v1 without the warning/"NUMA_NO_NODE -1"?

See what I have right now below.


>From 27e9b02146e5fbe8edac49767693fa18c9b204dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:48:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v2] drivers/base/node.c: Simplify
 unregister_memory_block_under_nodes()

We don't allow to offline memory block devices that belong to multiple
numa nodes. Therefore, such devices can never get removed. It is
sufficient to process a single node when removing the memory block.

Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
---
 drivers/base/memory.c |  1 +
 drivers/base/node.c   | 39 +++++++++++++++------------------------
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
index 20c39d1bcef8..154d5d4a0779 100644
--- a/drivers/base/memory.c
+++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
@@ -674,6 +674,7 @@ static int init_memory_block(struct memory_block **memory,
 	mem->state = state;
 	start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem->start_section_nr);
 	mem->phys_device = arch_get_memory_phys_device(start_pfn);
+	mem->nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
 
 	ret = register_memory(mem);
 
diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
index 75b7e6f6535b..840c95baa1d8 100644
--- a/drivers/base/node.c
+++ b/drivers/base/node.c
@@ -759,8 +759,6 @@ static int register_mem_sect_under_node(struct memory_block *mem_blk,
 	int ret, nid = *(int *)arg;
 	unsigned long pfn, sect_start_pfn, sect_end_pfn;
 
-	mem_blk->nid = nid;
-
 	sect_start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->start_section_nr);
 	sect_end_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->end_section_nr);
 	sect_end_pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1;
@@ -789,6 +787,13 @@ static int register_mem_sect_under_node(struct memory_block *mem_blk,
 			if (page_nid != nid)
 				continue;
 		}
+
+		/*
+		 * If this memory block spans multiple nodes, we only indicate
+		 * the last processed node.
+		 */
+		mem_blk->nid = nid;
+
 		ret = sysfs_create_link_nowarn(&node_devices[nid]->dev.kobj,
 					&mem_blk->dev.kobj,
 					kobject_name(&mem_blk->dev.kobj));
@@ -804,32 +809,18 @@ static int register_mem_sect_under_node(struct memory_block *mem_blk,
 }
 
 /*
- * Unregister memory block device under all nodes that it spans.
- * Has to be called with mem_sysfs_mutex held (due to unlinked_nodes).
+ * Unregister a memory block device under the node it spans. Memory blocks
+ * with multiple nodes cannot be offlined and therefore also never be removed.
  */
 void unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk)
 {
-	unsigned long pfn, sect_start_pfn, sect_end_pfn;
-	static nodemask_t unlinked_nodes;
-
-	nodes_clear(unlinked_nodes);
-	sect_start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->start_section_nr);
-	sect_end_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->end_section_nr);
-	for (pfn = sect_start_pfn; pfn <= sect_end_pfn; pfn++) {
-		int nid;
+	if (mem_blk->nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
+		return;
 
-		nid = get_nid_for_pfn(pfn);
-		if (nid < 0)
-			continue;
-		if (!node_online(nid))
-			continue;
-		if (node_test_and_set(nid, unlinked_nodes))
-			continue;
-		sysfs_remove_link(&node_devices[nid]->dev.kobj,
-			 kobject_name(&mem_blk->dev.kobj));
-		sysfs_remove_link(&mem_blk->dev.kobj,
-			 kobject_name(&node_devices[nid]->dev.kobj));
-	}
+	sysfs_remove_link(&node_devices[mem_blk->nid]->dev.kobj,
+			  kobject_name(&mem_blk->dev.kobj));
+	sysfs_remove_link(&mem_blk->dev.kobj,
+			  kobject_name(&node_devices[mem_blk->nid]->dev.kobj));
 }
 
 int link_mem_sections(int nid, unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
-- 
2.21.0


-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ