Message-ID: <CAAmzW4OFy51BhAT62tdVQD52NNMWm+UPgoGAX97omY7P+nJ+5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 18:47:49 +0900
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/numa: Set numa_node for all possible cpus

2020년 3월 13일 (금) 오전 1:42, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>님이 작성:
>
> On 3/12/20 5:13 PM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> [2020-03-12 14:51:38]:
> >
> >> > * Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> [2020-03-12 10:30:50]:
> >> >
> >> >> On 3/12/20 9:23 AM, Sachin Sant wrote:
> >> >> >> On 12-Mar-2020, at 10:57 AM, Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> * Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> [2020-03-11 12:57:35]:
> >> >> >>> On Wed 11-03-20 16:32:35, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >> >> >>>> To ensure a cpuless, memoryless dummy node is not online, powerpc need
> >> >> >>>> to make sure all possible but not present cpu_to_node are set to a
> >> >> >>>> proper node.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Just curious, is this somehow related to
> >> >> >>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200227182650.GG3771@dhcp22.suse.cz?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The issue I am trying to fix is a known issue in Powerpc since many years.
> >> >> >> So this surely not a problem after a75056fc1e7c (mm/memcontrol.c: allocate
> >> >> >> shrinker_map on appropriate NUMA node").
> >> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > While I am not an expert in the slub area, I looked at the patch
> >> > a75056fc1e7c and had some thoughts on why this could be causing this issue.
> >> >
> >> > On the system where the crash happens, the possible number of nodes is much
> >> > greater than the number of onlined nodes. The pdgat or the NODE_DATA is only
> >> > available for onlined nodes.
> >> >
> >> > With a75056fc1e7c memcg_alloc_shrinker_maps, we end up calling kzalloc_node
> >> > for all possible nodes and in ___slab_alloc we end up looking at the
> >> > node_present_pages which is NODE_DATA(nid)->node_present_pages.
> >> > i.e for a node whose pdgat struct is not allocated, we are trying to
> >> > dereference.
> >>
> >> From what we saw, the pgdat does exist, the problem is that slab's per-node data
> >> doesn't exist for a node that doesn't have present pages, as it would be a waste
> >> of memory.
> >
> > Just to be clear
> > Before my 3 patches to fix dummy node:
> > srikar@...-zzci-2 /sys/devices/system/node $ cat $PWD/possible
> > 0-31
> > srikar@...-zzci-2 /sys/devices/system/node $ cat $PWD/online
> > 0-1
>
> OK
>
> >>
> >> Uh actually you are probably right, the NODE_DATA doesn't exist anymore? In
> >> Sachin's first report [1] we have
> >>
> >> [    0.000000] numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0x8bfedc900-0x8bfee3fff]
> >> [    0.000000] numa:     NODE_DATA(0) on node 1
> >> [    0.000000] numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0x8bfed5200-0x8bfedc8ff]
> >>
> >
> > So even if pgdat would exist for nodes 0 and 1, there is no pgdat for the
> > rest 30 nodes.
>
> I see. Perhaps node_present_pages(node) is not safe in SLUB then and it should
> check online first, as you suggested.
>
> >> But in this thread, with your patches Sachin reports:
> >
> > and with my patches
> > srikar@...-zzci-2 /sys/devices/system/node $ cat $PWD/possible
> > 0-31
> > srikar@...-zzci-2 /sys/devices/system/node $ cat $PWD/online
> > 1
> >
> >>
> >> [    0.000000] numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0x8bfedc900-0x8bfee3fff]
> >>
> >
> > so we only see one pgdat.
> >
> >> So I assume it's just node 1. In that case, node_present_pages is really dangerous.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/3381CD91-AB3D-4773-BA04-E7A072A63968@linux.vnet.ibm.com/
> >>
> >> > Also for a memoryless/cpuless node or possible but not present nodes,
> >> > node_to_mem_node(node) will still end up as node (atleast on powerpc).
> >>
> >> I think that's the place where this would be best to fix.
> >>
> >
> > Maybe. I thought about it but the current set_numa_mem semantics are apt
> > for memoryless cpu node and not for possible nodes.  We could have upto 256
> > possible nodes and only 2 nodes (1,2) with cpu and 1 node (1) with memory.
> > node_to_mem_node seems to return what is set in set_numa_mem().
> > set_numa_mem() seems to say set my numa_mem node for the current memoryless
> > node to the param passed.
> >
> > But how do we set numa_mem for all the other 253 possible nodes, which
> > probably will have 0 as default?
> >
> > Should we introduce another API such that we could update for all possible
> > nodes?
>
> If we want to rely on node_to_mem_node() to give us something safe for each
> possible node, then probably it would have to be like that, yeah.
>
> >> > I tried with this hunk below and it works.
> >> >
> >> > But I am not sure if we need to check at other places were
> >> > node_present_pages is being called.
> >>
> >> I think this seems to defeat the purpose of node_to_mem_node()? Shouldn't it
> >> return only nodes that are online with present memory?
> >> CCing Joonsoo who seems to have introduced this in ad2c8144418c ("topology: add
> >> support for node_to_mem_node() to determine the fallback node")
> >>
> >
> > Agree

I lost all the memory about it. :)
Anyway, how about this?

1. make node_present_pages() safer
static inline node_present_pages(nid)
{
if (!node_online(nid)) return 0;
return (NODE_DATA(nid)->node_present_pages);
}

2. make node_to_mem_node() safer for all cases
In ppc arch's mem_topology_setup(void)
for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
 numa_setup_cpu(cpu);
 mem_node = node_to_mem_node(numa_mem_id());
 if (!node_present_pages(mem_node)) {
  _node_numa_mem_[numa_mem_id()] = first_online_node;
 }
}

With these two changes, we can uses node_present_pages() and node_to_mem_node()
as intended.

Thanks.

> >> I think we do need well defined and documented rules around node_to_mem_node(),
> >> cpu_to_node(), existence of NODE_DATA, various node_states bitmaps etc so
> >> everyone handles it the same, safe way.
>
> So let's try to brainstorm how this would look like? What I mean are some rules
> like below, even if some details in my current understanding are most likely
> incorrect:
>
> with nid present in:
> N_POSSIBLE - pgdat might not exist, node_to_mem_node() must return some online
> node with memory so that we don't require everyone to search for it in slightly
> different ways
> N_ONLINE - pgdat must exist, there doesn't have to be present memory,
> node_to_mem_node() still has to return something else (?)
> N_NORMAL_MEMORY - there is present memory, node_to_mem_node() returns itself
> N_HIGH_MEMORY - node has present high memory

Powered by blists - more mailing lists