linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/17] arch, mm: pull out allocation of NODE

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: <96850252-a49f-4d78-a94b-a9a25e3f2bd5@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 17:07:35 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
 Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
 linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
 sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/17] arch, mm: pull out allocation of NODE_DATA to
 generic code

>>> -	 * Allocate node data.  Try node-local memory and then any node.
>>> -	 * Never allocate in DMA zone.
>>> -	 */
>>> -	nd_pa = memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
>>> -	if (!nd_pa) {
>>> -		pr_err("Cannot find %zu bytes in any node (initial node: %d)\n",
>>> -		       nd_size, nid);
>>> -		return;
>>> -	}
>>> -	nd = __va(nd_pa);
>>> -
>>> -	/* report and initialize */
>>> -	printk(KERN_INFO "NODE_DATA(%d) allocated [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n", nid,
>>> -	       nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
>>> -	tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>>> -	if (tnid != nid)
>>> -		printk(KERN_INFO "    NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
>>> -
>>> -	node_data[nid] = nd;
>>> -	memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
>>> -
>>> -	node_set_online(nid);
>>> -}
>>> -
>>>    /**
>>>     * numa_cleanup_meminfo - Cleanup a numa_meminfo
>>>     * @mi: numa_meminfo to clean up
>>> @@ -571,6 +538,7 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
>>>    			continue;
>>>    		alloc_node_data(nid);
>>> +		node_set_online(nid);
>>>    	}
>>
>> I can spot that we only remove a single node_set_online() call from x86.
>>
>> What about all the other architectures? Will there be any change in behavior
>> for them? Or do we simply set the nodes online later once more?
> 
> On x86 node_set_online() was a part of alloc_node_data() and I moved it
> outside so it's called right after alloc_node_data(). On other
> architectures the allocation didn't include that call, so there should be
> no difference there.

But won't their arch code try setting the nodes online at a later stage?

And I think, some architectures only set nodes online conditionally
(see most other node_set_online() calls).

Sorry if I'm confused here, but with now unconditional node_set_online(), won't
we change the behavior of other architectures?

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb