From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7598CC4361B for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:53:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BA423107 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:53:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726680AbgLSOxM (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Dec 2020 09:53:12 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57830 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726495AbgLSOxL (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Dec 2020 09:53:11 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 432C5C0617B0 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 06:52:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id o17so13061815lfg.4 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 06:52:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YkBp5rL+/PBfutbbHdSYx1lnDR8/zByqi7yQkfcPe1o=; b=HN+UdUBj9NXIiZAnUQ34XuJb6foZDGPXhnJPot3VVZNe56moaQWWYWurL9UOP65fsj jWUE/N314RrMCk4Uuzm7hH5cTbD3XHdqK9cc4NKBblF2/em+Z59basBk+Aciv1VNOzpH UA24ZgSve4KLiFOZzoulY6YALNp5N3sK+7wuk4ZeGRNlRNY+BQyr2TZ3WlUn5neD/Qqb hST9npECGvU24DUPLOYCVUclxK297UzijrCYX7hgTraUXPzPx5m5p3XjqyoCOyCNi87X d2Ao5S4Pluworbamnc8d85+J/75KeVFu9tRdUgjRqO66yEN18fg6ub3KExqnJa4rC3Ei YhSw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YkBp5rL+/PBfutbbHdSYx1lnDR8/zByqi7yQkfcPe1o=; b=Rmj6ffWi7lTjdpcWMp1hjZxGijCbNCHGCRh+K2Pn9Cb7QRJZ68brl2jnI0mBlur5wX V119WsdpbCJoNLDH6S2q8p5qAUEcM2H2+vrYJ1n/Vh2r4ozkAiXGvv+eZP9D0oYnXlEX pXPaak/mWqWfdom5XG5nOBO74B9GbalZDQ3AXL6ZcTl4YdZKWoG92irmokQZF/sajWdO BpeNlmPSxGO8HvExIswmVE+tizrs4QMCynadiwUq62powzzBmE+02mmNgRiRdjXTpFxJ LgZAqLYN9rKA8dm2oXYJ/VshfWEJFuzZL7lu7xaFDkHyau+mpWEEITEWVIKapvZeans7 6TnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5317EDmlK883GQG19vOv7ntdPe3RSc7wTsaJ2nJ7t5Yta1s7VsAM AV1y1JQPpOJz9cttpIql/2HGHVkHD6nN/wkr5U0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzVbhChsjIwnE4Hx8mzlhh4rVkU/LQbglZ6N2SzfsKNZFzAYIXhfRsM09eQ6m4RL6vjpBre2GprOjZTlBg5HZ8= X-Received: by 2002:a19:5f59:: with SMTP id a25mr3551727lfj.310.1608389549662; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 06:52:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201217201214.3414100-1-guro@fb.com> <20201217201214.3414100-2-guro@fb.com> In-Reply-To: <20201217201214.3414100-2-guro@fb.com> From: Wonhyuk Yang Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 23:52:19 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] memblock: do not start bottom-up allocations with kernel_end To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Andrew Morton , Mike Rapoport , linux-mm@kvack.org, Joonsoo Kim , Rik van Riel , Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Roman, On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 5:12 AM Roman Gushchin wrote: > > With kaslr the kernel image is placed at a random place, so starting > the bottom-up allocation with the kernel_end can result in an > allocation failure and a warning like this one: > > [ 0.002920] hugetlb_cma: reserve 2048 MiB, up to 2048 MiB per node > [ 0.002921] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 0.002922] memblock: bottom-up allocation failed, memory hotremove may be affected > [ 0.002937] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/memblock.c:332 memblock_find_in_range_node+0x178/0x25a > [ 0.002956] Call Trace: > [ 0.002961] ? memblock_alloc_range_nid+0x8d/0x11e > [ 0.002963] ? cma_declare_contiguous_nid+0x2c4/0x38c > [ 0.002964] ? hugetlb_cma_reserve+0xdc/0x128 > [ 0.002968] ? flush_tlb_one_kernel+0xc/0x20 > [ 0.002969] ? native_set_fixmap+0x82/0xd0 > [ 0.002971] ? flat_get_apic_id+0x5/0x10 > [ 0.002973] ? register_lapic_address+0x8e/0x97 > [ 0.002975] ? setup_arch+0x8a5/0xc3f > [ 0.002978] ? start_kernel+0x66/0x547 > [ 0.002980] ? load_ucode_bsp+0x4c/0xcd > [ 0.002982] ? secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb0/0xbb > [ 0.002986] random: get_random_bytes called from __warn+0xab/0x110 with crng_init=0 > > At the same time, the kernel image is protected with memblock_reserve(), > so we can just start searching at PAGE_SIZE. In this case the > bottom-up allocation has the same chances to success as a top-down > allocation, so there is no reason to fallback in the case of a > failure. All together it simplifies the logic. I figure out that it was introduced by commit 79442ed189acb ("memblock.c: introduce bottom-up allocation mode") According to this commit, The purpose of bottom up allocation is to allocate memory from the unhotpluggable node. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45916C4361B for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:52:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7CFE23107 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:52:42 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B7CFE23107 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 1212B6B005C; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 09:52:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 0AC256B005D; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 09:52:42 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id EB58D6B0068; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 09:52:41 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0170.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.170]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31846B005C for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 09:52:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin13.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EEC72C9D for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:52:41 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77610323322.13.crack12_1d1024f27446 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin13.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D6121813F559 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:52:31 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: crack12_1d1024f27446 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4633 Received: from mail-lf1-f50.google.com (mail-lf1-f50.google.com [209.85.167.50]) by imf28.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:52:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f50.google.com with SMTP id m25so12949931lfc.11 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 06:52:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YkBp5rL+/PBfutbbHdSYx1lnDR8/zByqi7yQkfcPe1o=; b=HN+UdUBj9NXIiZAnUQ34XuJb6foZDGPXhnJPot3VVZNe56moaQWWYWurL9UOP65fsj jWUE/N314RrMCk4Uuzm7hH5cTbD3XHdqK9cc4NKBblF2/em+Z59basBk+Aciv1VNOzpH UA24ZgSve4KLiFOZzoulY6YALNp5N3sK+7wuk4ZeGRNlRNY+BQyr2TZ3WlUn5neD/Qqb hST9npECGvU24DUPLOYCVUclxK297UzijrCYX7hgTraUXPzPx5m5p3XjqyoCOyCNi87X d2Ao5S4Pluworbamnc8d85+J/75KeVFu9tRdUgjRqO66yEN18fg6ub3KExqnJa4rC3Ei YhSw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YkBp5rL+/PBfutbbHdSYx1lnDR8/zByqi7yQkfcPe1o=; b=ibwC+KGoZYL7hqoBzh6MKF/lV9Wk3Y5eb4ugTs9xwr3JMBTVmIISUuJbbihe1GueOI dh26VE5uepDxQ9I49ww1rHIXFGe93JjGYVn8WG4aXuLQDc2ZEiuwQLQccPHuuLKV5WBk oP8omT+CGzrd8Q/f2ge27eY1pjk45CVDMZRYdq2ihdkNVF+McOXBUnaiSzn1CMYZct6k A9Veyst5q1leYPfe8WedDDszkDcPWc+T5V3ZdjitxADX+F2Pqpg7WusCtvpFmGuA7Tjp HtSRkDHkScXQmRQvnZiYBDr5sj32N5JWgPCVyOAMRILezLSFD/fujW6E3ENRmaqS0+wC f/EA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531YtmKa8jpTO1UzcZG1HFVKh52fyl1nKBP1yD68kaaotz0qDAgj AgyLKx7Axz+ZP1BnFiq6y9TKalfI9qRqMVKhGG8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzVbhChsjIwnE4Hx8mzlhh4rVkU/LQbglZ6N2SzfsKNZFzAYIXhfRsM09eQ6m4RL6vjpBre2GprOjZTlBg5HZ8= X-Received: by 2002:a19:5f59:: with SMTP id a25mr3551727lfj.310.1608389549662; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 06:52:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201217201214.3414100-1-guro@fb.com> <20201217201214.3414100-2-guro@fb.com> In-Reply-To: <20201217201214.3414100-2-guro@fb.com> From: Wonhyuk Yang Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 23:52:19 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] memblock: do not start bottom-up allocations with kernel_end To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Andrew Morton , Mike Rapoport , linux-mm@kvack.org, Joonsoo Kim , Rik van Riel , Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Hi Roman, On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 5:12 AM Roman Gushchin wrote: > > With kaslr the kernel image is placed at a random place, so starting > the bottom-up allocation with the kernel_end can result in an > allocation failure and a warning like this one: > > [ 0.002920] hugetlb_cma: reserve 2048 MiB, up to 2048 MiB per node > [ 0.002921] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 0.002922] memblock: bottom-up allocation failed, memory hotremove may be affected > [ 0.002937] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/memblock.c:332 memblock_find_in_range_node+0x178/0x25a > [ 0.002956] Call Trace: > [ 0.002961] ? memblock_alloc_range_nid+0x8d/0x11e > [ 0.002963] ? cma_declare_contiguous_nid+0x2c4/0x38c > [ 0.002964] ? hugetlb_cma_reserve+0xdc/0x128 > [ 0.002968] ? flush_tlb_one_kernel+0xc/0x20 > [ 0.002969] ? native_set_fixmap+0x82/0xd0 > [ 0.002971] ? flat_get_apic_id+0x5/0x10 > [ 0.002973] ? register_lapic_address+0x8e/0x97 > [ 0.002975] ? setup_arch+0x8a5/0xc3f > [ 0.002978] ? start_kernel+0x66/0x547 > [ 0.002980] ? load_ucode_bsp+0x4c/0xcd > [ 0.002982] ? secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb0/0xbb > [ 0.002986] random: get_random_bytes called from __warn+0xab/0x110 with crng_init=0 > > At the same time, the kernel image is protected with memblock_reserve(), > so we can just start searching at PAGE_SIZE. In this case the > bottom-up allocation has the same chances to success as a top-down > allocation, so there is no reason to fallback in the case of a > failure. All together it simplifies the logic. I figure out that it was introduced by commit 79442ed189acb ("memblock.c: introduce bottom-up allocation mode") According to this commit, The purpose of bottom up allocation is to allocate memory from the unhotpluggable node.