linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ppc64/numa: consider the max numa node for migratable LPAR

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210510102107.GR2633526@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 15:51:07 +0530
From:   Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     mpe@...erman.id.au, benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
        nathanl@...ux.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc64/numa: consider the max numa node for migratable
 LPAR

* Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com> [2021-04-29 20:19:01]:

> When a LPAR is migratable, we should consider the maximum possible NUMA
> node instead the number of NUMA node from the actual system.
> 
> The DT property 'ibm,current-associativity-domains' is defining the maximum
> number of nodes the LPAR can see when running on that box. But if the LPAR
> is being migrated on another box, it may seen up to the nodes defined by
> 'ibm,max-associativity-domains'. So if a LPAR is migratable, that value
> should be used.
> 
> Unfortunately, there is no easy way to know if a LPAR is migratable or
> not. The hypervisor is exporting the property 'ibm,migratable-partition' in
> the case it set to migrate partition, but that would not mean that the
> current partition is migratable.
> 
> Without that patch, when a LPAR is started on a 2 nodes box and then
> migrated to a 3 nodes box, the hypervisor may spread the LPAR's CPUs on the
> 3rd node. In that case if a CPU from that 3rd node is added to the LPAR, it
> will be wrongly assigned to the node because the kernel has been set to use


> up to 2 nodes (the configuration of the departure node). With that patch
> applies, the CPU is correctly added to the 3rd node.

You probably meant, "With this patch applied"

Also you may want to add a fixes tag:

> Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index f2bf98bdcea2..673fa6e47850 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -893,7 +893,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
>  static void __init find_possible_nodes(void)
>  {
>  	struct device_node *rtas;
> -	const __be32 *domains;
> +	const __be32 *domains = NULL;
>  	int prop_length, max_nodes;
>  	u32 i;
> 
> @@ -909,9 +909,14 @@ static void __init find_possible_nodes(void)
>  	 * it doesn't exist, then fallback on ibm,max-associativity-domains.
>  	 * Current denotes what the platform can support compared to max
>  	 * which denotes what the Hypervisor can support.
> +	 *
> +	 * If the LPAR is migratable, new nodes might be activated after a LPM,
> +	 * so we should consider the max number in that case.
>  	 */
> -	domains = of_get_property(rtas, "ibm,current-associativity-domains",
> -					&prop_length);
> +	if (!of_get_property(of_root, "ibm,migratable-partition", NULL))
> +		domains = of_get_property(rtas,
> +					  "ibm,current-associativity-domains",
> +					  &prop_length);
>  	if (!domains) {
>  		domains = of_get_property(rtas, "ibm,max-associativity-domains",
>  					&prop_length);
> @@ -920,6 +925,9 @@ static void __init find_possible_nodes(void)
>  	}
> 
>  	max_nodes = of_read_number(&domains[min_common_depth], 1);
> +	printk(KERN_INFO "Partition configured for %d NUMA nodes.\n",
> +	       max_nodes);
> +

Another nit:
you may want to make this pr_info instead of printk

>  	for (i = 0; i < max_nodes; i++) {
>  		if (!node_possible(i))
>  			node_set(i, node_possible_map);
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

Otherwise looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju