linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm,slub: Do not special case N_NORMAL nodes for slab

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: <Z_UbZ8yY7lbB15-P@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 14:49:43 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
	linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm,slub: Do not special case N_NORMAL nodes for
 slab_nodes

On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 12:17:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Feel free to add a Suggested-by: if you think it applies.

Sorry David, my bad, totally missed it.
I shall add it.

> Do we have to take care of the N_NORMAL_MEMORY check in kmem_cache_init() ? Likely it
> would have to be a N_MEMORY check.

Yes, should be N_MEMORY.

> But, I was wondering if we could get rid of the "slab_nodes" thingy as a first step?

I glanced over it and I did not see anything wrong with it, just a
question below.

So, if Vlastimil and Harry think this is fine, we can indeed do this.
If so, I would combine this and the #1 first of this series and add
your Signed-off-by as co-autor. Is that fine by you?


> @@ -3706,10 +3698,9 @@ static void *___slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags, int node,
>  	if (!slab) {
>  		/*
>  		 * if the node is not online or has no normal memory, just
> -		 * ignore the node constraint
> +		 * ignore the node constraint.
>  		 */
> -		if (unlikely(node != NUMA_NO_NODE &&
> -			     !node_isset(node, slab_nodes)))
> +		if (unlikely(node != NUMA_NO_NODE && !node_state(node, N_NORMAL_MEMORY)))
>  			node = NUMA_NO_NODE;

After my first patch, slab_nodes will also contain N_MEMORY nodes, which
makes me think whether that check should be N_MEMORY?



-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs