netdev - Re: [PATCH] ovs: do not allocate memory from offline numa 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: <5612DCC8.4040605@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:25:44 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
	dev@...nvswitch.org, Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ovs: do not allocate memory from offline numa node

On 10/05/2015 06:59 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/02/2015 12:18 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> When openvswitch tries allocate memory from offline numa node 0:
>> stats = kmem_cache_alloc_node(flow_stats_cache, GFP_KERNEL | 
>> __GFP_ZERO, 0)
>> It catches VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || 
>> !node_online(nid))
>> [ replaced with VM_WARN_ON(!node_online(nid)) recently ] in linux/gfp.h
>> This patch disables numa affinity in this case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
>
> ...
>
>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c b/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c
>> index f2ea83ba4763..c7f74aab34b9 100644
>> --- a/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c
>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c
>> @@ -93,7 +93,8 @@ struct sw_flow *ovs_flow_alloc(void)
>>
>>       /* Initialize the default stat node. */
>>       stats = kmem_cache_alloc_node(flow_stats_cache,
>> -                      GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, 0);
>> +                      GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO,
>> +                      node_online(0) ? 0 : NUMA_NO_NODE);
>
> Stupid question: can node 0 become offline between this check, and the 
> VM_WARN_ON? :) BTW what kind of system has node 0 offline?

Another question to ask would be is it possible for node 0 to be online, 
but be a memoryless node?

I would say you are better off just making this call kmem_cache_alloc.  
I don't see anything that indicates the memory has to come from node 0, 
so adding the extra overhead doesn't provide any value.

- Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html