| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20231019073625.GB2824@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:36:25 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Liam Ni <zhiguangni01@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, chenhuacai@...nel.org,
kernel@...0n.name, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, maobibo@...ngson.cn,
chenfeiyang@...ngson.cn, zhoubinbin@...ngson.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] NUMA: optimize detection of memory with no node id
assigned by firmware
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 04:30:33PM +0800, Liam Ni wrote:
> Sanity check that makes sure the nodes cover all memory loops over
> numa_meminfo to count the pages that have node id assigned by the firmware,
> then loops again over memblock.memory to find the total amount of memory
> and in the end checks that the difference between the total memory and
> memory that covered by nodes is less than some threshold. Worse, the loop
> over numa_meminfo calls __absent_pages_in_range() that also partially
> traverses memblock.memory.
>
> It's much simpler and more efficient to have a single traversal of
> memblock.memory that verifies that amount of memory not covered by nodes is
> less than a threshold.
>
> Introduce memblock_validate_numa_coverage() that does exactly that and use
> it instead of numa_meminfo_cover_memory().
>
> Signed-off-by: Liam Ni <zhiguangni01@...il.com>
> ---
> arch/loongarch/kernel/numa.c | 28 +---------------------------
> arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 34 ++--------------------------------
> include/linux/memblock.h | 1 +
> mm/memblock.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/kernel/numa.c b/arch/loongarch/kernel/numa.c
> index cb00804826f7..fca94d16be34 100644
> --- a/arch/loongarch/kernel/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/kernel/numa.c
> @@ -226,32 +226,6 @@ static void __init node_mem_init(unsigned int node)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
>
> -/*
> - * Sanity check to catch more bad NUMA configurations (they are amazingly
> - * common). Make sure the nodes cover all memory.
> - */
> -static bool __init numa_meminfo_cover_memory(const struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> -{
> - int i;
> - u64 numaram, biosram;
> -
> - numaram = 0;
> - for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) {
> - u64 s = mi->blk[i].start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> - u64 e = mi->blk[i].end >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> -
> - numaram += e - s;
> - numaram -= __absent_pages_in_range(mi->blk[i].nid, s, e);
> - if ((s64)numaram < 0)
> - numaram = 0;
> - }
> - max_pfn = max_low_pfn;
> - biosram = max_pfn - absent_pages_in_range(0, max_pfn);
> -
> - BUG_ON((s64)(biosram - numaram) >= (1 << (20 - PAGE_SHIFT)));
> - return true;
> -}
> -
> static void __init add_node_intersection(u32 node, u64 start, u64 size, u32 type)
> {
> static unsigned long num_physpages;
> @@ -396,7 +370,7 @@ int __init init_numa_memory(void)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> init_node_memblock();
> - if (numa_meminfo_cover_memory(&numa_meminfo) == false)
> + if (memblock_validate_numa_coverage(SZ_1M >> 12) == false)
No magic constants please.
Either use
SZ_1M >> PAGE_SIZE
here, or make threshold in bytes and convert it to number of pages in
memblock_validate_numa_coverage().
Besides, no need to compare to false,
if (!memblock_validate_numa_coverage())
will do
> return -EINVAL;
>
> for_each_node_mask(node, node_possible_map) {
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> index 2aadb2019b4f..95376e7c263e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> @@ -447,37 +447,6 @@ int __node_distance(int from, int to)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__node_distance);
>
> -/*
> - * Sanity check to catch more bad NUMA configurations (they are amazingly
> - * common). Make sure the nodes cover all memory.
> - */
> -static bool __init numa_meminfo_cover_memory(const struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> -{
> - u64 numaram, e820ram;
> - int i;
> -
> - numaram = 0;
> - for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) {
> - u64 s = mi->blk[i].start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> - u64 e = mi->blk[i].end >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> - numaram += e - s;
> - numaram -= __absent_pages_in_range(mi->blk[i].nid, s, e);
> - if ((s64)numaram < 0)
> - numaram = 0;
> - }
> -
> - e820ram = max_pfn - absent_pages_in_range(0, max_pfn);
> -
> - /* We seem to lose 3 pages somewhere. Allow 1M of slack. */
> - if ((s64)(e820ram - numaram) >= (1 << (20 - PAGE_SHIFT))) {
> - printk(KERN_ERR "NUMA: nodes only cover %LuMB of your %LuMB e820 RAM. Not used.\n",
> - (numaram << PAGE_SHIFT) >> 20,
> - (e820ram << PAGE_SHIFT) >> 20);
> - return false;
> - }
> - return true;
> -}
> -
> /*
> * Mark all currently memblock-reserved physical memory (which covers the
> * kernel's own memory ranges) as hot-unswappable.
> @@ -583,7 +552,8 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> }
> - if (!numa_meminfo_cover_memory(mi))
> +
> + if (!memblock_validate_numa_coverage(SZ_1M >> 12))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /* Finally register nodes. */
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index 1c1072e3ca06..727242f4b54a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -120,6 +120,7 @@ int memblock_physmem_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
> void memblock_trim_memory(phys_addr_t align);
> bool memblock_overlaps_region(struct memblock_type *type,
> phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
> +bool memblock_validate_numa_coverage(const u64 threshold_pages);
> int memblock_mark_hotplug(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
> int memblock_clear_hotplug(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
> int memblock_mark_mirror(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 0863222af4a4..4f1f2d8a8119 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -734,6 +734,40 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> return memblock_add_range(&memblock.memory, base, size, MAX_NUMNODES, 0);
> }
>
> +/**
> + * memblock_validate_numa_coverage - calculating memory with no node id assigned by firmware
> + * @threshold_pages: threshold memory of no node id assigned
> + *
> + * calculating memory with no node id assigned by firmware,
> + * If the number is less than the @threshold_pages, it returns true,
> + * otherwise it returns false.
> + *
> + * Return:
> + * true on success, false on failure.
> + */
I'd suggest the below version:
/**
* memblock_validate_numa_coverage - check if amount of memory with
* no node ID assigned is less than a threshold
* @threshold_pages: maximal number of pages that can have unassigned node
* ID (in pages).
*
* A buggy firmware may report memory that does not belong to any node.
* Check if amount of such memory is below @threshold_pages.
*
* Return: true on success, false on failure.
*/
> +bool __init_memblock memblock_validate_numa_coverage(const u64 threshold_pages)
> +{
> + unsigned long nr_pages = 0;
> + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn, mem_size_mb;
> + int nid, i;
> +
> + /* calculate lose page */
> + for_each_mem_pfn_range(i, MAX_NUMNODES, &start_pfn, &end_pfn, &nid) {
> + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> + nr_pages += end_pfn - start_pfn;
> + }
> +
> + if (nr_pages >= threshold_pages) {
> + mem_size_mb = memblock_phys_mem_size() >> 20;
> + pr_err("NUMA: no nodes coverage for %luMB of %luMB RAM\n",
> + (nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT) >> 20, mem_size_mb);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +
> /**
> * memblock_isolate_range - isolate given range into disjoint memblocks
> * @type: memblock type to isolate range for
> --
> 2.25.1
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists