linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm/vmscan.c: Prevent allocating shrinker

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]

Date:   Mon, 6 Dec 2021 15:21:05 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        ktkhai@...tuozzo.com, shy828301@...il.com, guro@...com,
        vbabka@...e.cz, vdavydov.dev@...il.com, raquini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm/vmscan.c: Prevent allocating shrinker_info on
 offlined nodes

On Mon 06-12-21 15:08:10, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
> >> But there might be more missing. Onlining a new zone will get more
> >> expensive in setups with a lot of possible nodes (x86-64 shouldn't
> >> really be an issue in that regard).
> > 
> > Honestly, I am not really concerned by platforms with too many nodes
> > without any memory. If they want to shoot their feet then that's their
> > choice. We can optimize for those if they ever prove to be standar.
> >  
> >> If we want stable backports, we'll want something simple upfront.
> > 
> > For stable backports I would be fine by doing your NODE_DATA check in
> > the allocator. In upstream I think we should be aiming for a more robust
> > solution that is also easier to maintain further down the line. Even if
> > that is an investment at this momemnt because the initialization code is
> > a mess.
> > 
> 
> Agreed. I would be curious *why* we decided to dynamically allocate the
> pgdat. is this just a historical coincidence or was there real reason to
> not allocate it for all possible nodes during boot?

I don't know but if I was to guess the most likely explanation would be
that the numa init code was in a similar order as now and it was easier
to simply allocate a pgdat when a new one was onlined.
9af3c2dea3a3 ("[PATCH] pgdat allocation for new node add (call pgdat allocation)")
doesn't really tell much.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs