[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEcHRTqcrEdXcr02OZnSTgxwQ0Por7y4gAXn6uM=Dp=TVq_5kA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 23:52:19 +0900
From: Wonhyuk Yang <vvghjk1234@...il.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] memblock: do not start bottom-up allocations with kernel_end
Hi Roman,
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 5:12 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
>
> With kaslr the kernel image is placed at a random place, so starting
> the bottom-up allocation with the kernel_end can result in an
> allocation failure and a warning like this one:
>
> [ 0.002920] hugetlb_cma: reserve 2048 MiB, up to 2048 MiB per node
> [ 0.002921] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 0.002922] memblock: bottom-up allocation failed, memory hotremove may be affected
> [ 0.002937] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/memblock.c:332 memblock_find_in_range_node+0x178/0x25a
> [ 0.002956] Call Trace:
> [ 0.002961] ? memblock_alloc_range_nid+0x8d/0x11e
> [ 0.002963] ? cma_declare_contiguous_nid+0x2c4/0x38c
> [ 0.002964] ? hugetlb_cma_reserve+0xdc/0x128
> [ 0.002968] ? flush_tlb_one_kernel+0xc/0x20
> [ 0.002969] ? native_set_fixmap+0x82/0xd0
> [ 0.002971] ? flat_get_apic_id+0x5/0x10
> [ 0.002973] ? register_lapic_address+0x8e/0x97
> [ 0.002975] ? setup_arch+0x8a5/0xc3f
> [ 0.002978] ? start_kernel+0x66/0x547
> [ 0.002980] ? load_ucode_bsp+0x4c/0xcd
> [ 0.002982] ? secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb0/0xbb
> [ 0.002986] random: get_random_bytes called from __warn+0xab/0x110 with crng_init=0
>
> At the same time, the kernel image is protected with memblock_reserve(),
> so we can just start searching at PAGE_SIZE. In this case the
> bottom-up allocation has the same chances to success as a top-down
> allocation, so there is no reason to fallback in the case of a
> failure. All together it simplifies the logic.
I figure out that it was introduced by
commit 79442ed189acb ("memblock.c: introduce bottom-up allocation mode")
According to this commit, The purpose of bottom up allocation is to
allocate memory from the unhotpluggable node.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists