linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0 offline

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200818074920.GA3698@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 13:19:20 +0530
From:   Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Such?nek <msuchanek@...e.de>,
        Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Satheesh Rajendran <sathnaga@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0
 offline

* Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> [2020-08-18 09:37:12]:

> On Tue 18-08-20 09:32:52, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 12.08.20 08:01, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > Hi Andrew, Michal, David
> > > 
> > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> [2020-08-06 21:32:11]:
> > > 
> > >> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 18:28:23 +0530 Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> The memory hotplug changes that somehow because you can hotremove numa
> > >>>> nodes and therefore make the nodemask sparse but that is not a common
> > >>>> case. I am not sure what would happen if a completely new node was added
> > >>>> and its corresponding node was already used by the renumbered one
> > >>>> though. It would likely conflate the two I am afraid. But I am not sure
> > >>>> this is really possible with x86 and a lack of a bug report would
> > >>>> suggest that nobody is doing that at least.
> > >>>>
> > >> So...  do we merge this patch or not?  Seems that the overall view is
> > >> "risky but nobody is likely to do anything better any time soon"?
> > > 
> > > Can we decide on this one way or the other?
> > 
> > Hmm, not sure who's the person to decide. I tend to prefer doing the
> > node renaming, handling this in ppc code;
> 
> Agreed. That would be a safer option.

Okay, will send arch specific v6 version.

> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju