linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/memcontrol: do not tweak node in mem_cgroup

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]

Message-ID: <47119364-30ac-cb57-7fd8-d9aa4b230478@shopee.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:28:38 +0800
From:   Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, hannes@...xchg.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/memcontrol: do not tweak node in mem_cgroup_init()



On 2023/6/15 16:14, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 15-06-23 07:32:25, Haifeng Xu wrote:
>> mem_cgroup_init() request for allocations from each possible node, and
>> it's used to be a problem because NODE_DATA is not allocated for offline
>> node. Things have already changed since commit 09f49dca570a9 ("mm: handle
>> uninitialized numa nodes gracefully"), so it's unnecessary to check for
>> !node_online nodes here.
> 
> How have you tested this patch?

Start with one empty node:

qemu-system-x86_64 \
  -kernel vmlinux \
  -initrd full.rootfs.cpio.gz \
  -append "console=ttyS0,115200 root=/dev/ram0 nokaslr earlyprintk=serial oops=panic panic_on_warn" \
  -drive format=qcow2,file=vm_disk.qcow2,media=disk,if=ide \
  -enable-kvm \
  -cpu host \
  -m 8G,slots=2,maxmem=16G \
  -smp cores=4,threads=1,sockets=2  \
  -object memory-backend-ram,id=mem0,size=4G \
  -object memory-backend-ram,id=mem1,size=4G \
  -numa node,memdev=mem0,cpus=0-3,nodeid=0 \
  -numa node,memdev=mem1,cpus=4-7,nodeid=1 \
  -numa node,nodeid=2 \
  -net nic,model=virtio,macaddr=52:54:00:12:34:58 \
  -net user \
  -nographic \
  -rtc base=localtime \
  -gdb tcp::6000

Guest state when booting:
[    0.048881] NUMA: Node 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x0009ffff] + [mem 0x00100000-0xbfffffff] -> [mem 0x00000000-0xbfffffff]
[    0.050489] NUMA: Node 0 [mem 0x00000000-0xbfffffff] + [mem 0x100000000-0x13fffffff] -> [mem 0x00000000-0x13fffffff]
[    0.052173] NODE_DATA(0) allocated [mem 0x13fffc000-0x13fffffff]
[    0.053164] NODE_DATA(1) allocated [mem 0x23fffa000-0x23fffdfff]
[    0.054187] Zone ranges:
[    0.054587]   DMA      [mem 0x0000000000001000-0x0000000000ffffff]
[    0.055551]   DMA32    [mem 0x0000000001000000-0x00000000ffffffff]
[    0.056515]   Normal   [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000023fffffff]
[    0.057484] Movable zone start for each node
[    0.058149] Early memory node ranges
[    0.058705]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000000001000-0x000000000009efff]
[    0.059679]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x00000000bffdffff]
[    0.060659]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000013fffffff]
[    0.061649]   node   1: [mem 0x0000000140000000-0x000000023fffffff]
[    0.062638] Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x0000000000001000-0x000000013fffffff]
[    0.063745] Initmem setup node 1 [mem 0x0000000140000000-0x000000023fffffff]
[    0.064855]   DMA zone: 158 reserved pages exceeds freesize 0
[    0.065746] Initializing node 2 as memoryless
[    0.066437] Initmem setup node 2 as memoryless
[    0.067132]   DMA zone: 158 reserved pages exceeds freesize 0
[    0.068037] On node 0, zone DMA: 1 pages in unavailable ranges
[    0.068265] On node 0, zone DMA: 97 pages in unavailable ranges
[    0.124755] On node 0, zone Normal: 32 pages in unavailable ranges


cat /sys/devices/system/node/online
0-1
cat /sys/devices/system/node/possible
0-2

In addition, I add a debug meesage:

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 7ebf64e48b25..3d786281377d 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -7424,7 +7424,7 @@ static int __init mem_cgroup_init(void)
                rtpn = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*rtpn), GFP_KERNEL, node);
                if (!rtpn)
                        continue;
-
+               pr_info("allocate rtpn node %d.\n", node);
                rtpn->rb_root = RB_ROOT;
                rtpn->rb_rightmost = NULL;
                spin_lock_init(&rtpn->lock);


[    0.561420] allocate rtpn node 0.
[    0.562324] allocate rtpn node 1.
[    0.563322] allocate rtpn node 2.


> 
> I am not saying it is wrong and it looks like the right thing to do. But
> the early init code has proven to be more subtle than expected so it is
> definitely good to know that this has been tested on memory less setup
> and passed.
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/memcontrol.c | 3 +--
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 4b27e245a055..c73c5fb33f65 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -7421,8 +7421,7 @@ static int __init mem_cgroup_init(void)
>>  	for_each_node(node) {
>>  		struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_node *rtpn;
>>  
>> -		rtpn = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*rtpn), GFP_KERNEL,
>> -				    node_online(node) ? node : NUMA_NO_NODE);
>> +		rtpn = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*rtpn), GFP_KERNEL, node);
>>  
>>  		rtpn->rb_root = RB_ROOT;
>>  		rtpn->rb_rightmost = NULL;
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>