linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER

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: <20200330092127.GB30942@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:21:27 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Hoan Tran <Hoan@...amperecomputing.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        lho@...erecomputing.com, mmorana@...erecomputing.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by
 default for NUMA

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 09:42:46AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 28-03-20 11:31:17, Hoan Tran wrote:
> > In NUMA layout which nodes have memory ranges that span across other nodes,
> > the mm driver can detect the memory node id incorrectly.
> > 
> > For example, with layout below
> > Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx 0000 xxxx
> > Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 xxxx 1111
> > 
> > Note:
> >  - Memory from low to high
> >  - 0/1: Node id
> >  - x: Invalid memory of a node
> > 
> > When mm probes the memory map, without CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> > config, mm only checks the memory validity but not the node id.
> > Because of that, Node 1 also detects the memory from node 0 as below
> > when it scans from the start address to the end address of node 1.
> > 
> > Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx
> > Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 1111 1111
> > 
> > This layout could occur on any architecture. Most of them enables
> > this config by default with CONFIG_NUMA. This patch, by default, enables
> > CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES or uses early_pfn_in_nid() for NUMA.
> 
> I am not opposed to this at all. It reduces the config space and that is
> a good thing on its own. The history has shown that meory layout might
> be really wild wrt NUMA. The config is only used for early_pfn_in_nid
> which is clearly an overkill.
> 
> Your description doesn't really explain why this is safe though. The
> history of this config is somehow messy, though. Mike has tried
> to remove it a94b3ab7eab4 ("[PATCH] mm: remove arch independent
> NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES") just to be reintroduced by 7516795739bd
> ("[PATCH] Reintroduce NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES for powerpc") without any
> reasoning what so ever. This doesn't make it really easy see whether
> reasons for reintroduction are still there. Maybe there are some subtle
> dependencies. I do not see any TBH but that might be burried deep in an
> arch specific code.

Well, back then early_pfn_in_nid() was arch-dependant, today everyone
except ia64 rely on HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP. So, if the memblock node map
is correct, that using CONFIG_NUMA instead of CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
would only mean that early_pfn_in_nid() will cost several cycles more on
architectures that didn't select CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES (i.e. arm64
and sh).
Agian, ia64 is an exception here.


> > v3:
> >  * Revise the patch description
> > 
> > V2:
> >  * Revise the patch description
> > 
> > Hoan Tran (5):
> >   mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA
> >   powerpc: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> >   x86: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> >   sparc: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> >   s390: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> > 
> >  arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> >  arch/s390/Kconfig    | 8 --------
> >  arch/sparc/Kconfig   | 9 ---------
> >  arch/x86/Kconfig     | 9 ---------
> >  mm/page_alloc.c      | 2 +-
> >  5 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 36 deletions(-)
> > 
> > -- 
> > 1.8.3.1
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.