linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined

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: <CAHbLzkqXRLaAYsD+f5B5hgoE+STGat1syzpCUFH3f6W=HtMULA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 10:13:54 -0700
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     "Zach O'Keefe" <zokeefe@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Davidoff <davidoff@...mf.net>,
        Bob Liu <lliubbo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:54 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 02-11-22 13:08:08, Yang Shi wrote:
> [...]
> > So I think we narrowed down to two options:
> > 1. Preserve the interleave behavior but bail out if the target node is
> > not online (it is also racy, but doesn't hurt)
>
> I do not think there is merit in the interleave patch is dubious to say
> the least.
>
> > 2. Remove the node balance code entirely
>
> Yes, removing the balancing makes sense but I would still hope that we
> do not fail too easily if the range is populated on multiple nodes
> equally. In practice it will likely not matter much I guess but setting
> up all nodes with top score is just easy to achieve.

OK, thanks. I will come up with a patch to allow fallback between the
nodes, it should be largely based on the change suggested by you.

> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs