linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/x86/mm/numa: Do not initialize nodes twice

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: <YhOUZfWIthy/08I0@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:32:21 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Rafael Aquini <raquini@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
        Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/x86/mm/numa: Do not initialize nodes twice

On Mon 21-02-22 10:47:44, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 18-02-22 23:43:02, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > > Why setting the node online saves us then? Well, simply because
> > > __try_online_node() backs off when the node is online, meaning
> > > we do not end up calling register_one_node() in the first place.
> > 
> > This is really a mess and a house built on sand. Thanks for looking into
> > it and hopefully this can get cleaned up to a saner state.
> 
> Yes, I am willing to have a deep look into that and see how we can
> improve the situation.
> 
> > This sha1 is from linux-next very likely so it won't be persistent.
> > Please drop it.
> 
> Yes, it is. I guess it is fine to not have a "Fixes" tag here, so I will
> remove it then.

Normally we use sha in Fixes tag and I am not sure how many scripts we
would confuse if there was no but I guess it is good enough to mention
the patch name in the description. Theoretically we could have folded it
to my patch but I think it would be better to have it separate because
a) it gives a nice overview of the mess we should be dealing with and b)
the original patch would likely be more convoluted than necessary.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs