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=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 81EC9C4BA24 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 12:12:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D8324697 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 12:12:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1582805538; bh=DO1kEfvpRmfqcGY+E8gM4pHr3zL40lB6BXtbFyM5uSM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=WsahU1esgDqyNRAeboBh+0ZpL8gbs1oQGsnGRL1yQ9zxjHHq0RlKc9yNMz0u5jvVx RXE8+fPK/JjU3ntgKaYnkQyoCBFIbiF/N+js8Nkg+jicIKQxj4q97lpgXXYnRZOiZV 529naBv42fWdsB60OEqZwd7hf9S1VEEt5Kw0st6U= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728963AbgB0MMS (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Feb 2020 07:12:18 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-f67.google.com ([209.85.210.67]:36409 "EHLO mail-ot1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728856AbgB0MMR (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Feb 2020 07:12:17 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f67.google.com with SMTP id j20so2700593otq.3 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 04:12:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=wAy/HoXlPsKGVv3Arb2L5dXTkVg8l5DWVj+VU2leEfY=; b=rlIr46VBTDP9u/7mmkE7py+opcehTdirIzNAPsK/c5fxwW3sshzZCgoGqpGtQMrmc5 WUbP8S0fs7VLiswxjEnOjDV99EMmerpT7r7kQtpRSj9wdaD88jBrNx2atbpwO4d/PfNb Q04icg6e6c2HLt6ZKW/Tv+jYNwD+ZzDXNOa5dESXUZk1YfYkdmcXjoJu/8qC9fqmghVb OfA8mSKgOVlARes45lSz1QFu0a+VJjcA/x//Cq5Jj5t7GZOjslJZvFTF0gofr3i5Tjp3 a2pFveSeYiBkbUQyiXFiQpchheeJgVAfC68TcB8pkcQ9VRCsld7SlRpryqtwqFttMtfN TKwA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXprpdHl699AbXLKVvJcBzzh7nsr+pWiNr5Y+FPMBo2RjUG3X60 XvECjPBkfI2ehpaYm0dR8Zc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy57WOtkiVEsLREk9cIvpOLT2XJeuMjo9L51/5HtEeQwhafxUUEiHowfCJ3CzEaUupx1TqcOg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1e2d:: with SMTP id t13mr3169668otr.128.1582805537162; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 04:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (prg-ext-pat.suse.com. [213.151.95.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a15sm822938otf.75.2020.02.27.04.12.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 27 Feb 2020 04:12:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 13:12:14 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Vlastimil Babka , Sachin Sant Cc: Christopher Lameter , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Kirill Tkhai , Linux-Next Mailing List , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [5.6.0-rc2-next-20200218/powerpc] Boot failure on POWER9 Message-ID: <20200227121214.GE3771@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200218142620.GF4151@dhcp22.suse.cz> <35EE65CF-40E3-4870-AEBC-D326977176DA@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20200218152441.GH4151@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200224085812.GB22443@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200226184152.GQ3771@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Wed 26-02-20 23:29:24, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 2/26/20 10:45 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > > > > if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) > > page = alloc_pages(flags, order); > > else > > page = __alloc_pages_node(node, flags, order); > > > > So yeah looks like SLUB's kmalloc_node() is supposed to behave like the > > page allocator's __alloc_pages_node() and respect __GFP_THISNODE but not > > enforce it by itself. There's probably just some missing data structure > > initialization somewhere right now for memoryless nodes. > > Upon more digging, I think the problem could manifest if > node_to_mem_node(0) (_node_numa_mem_[0]) returned 0 instead of 1, > because it wasn't initialized properly for a memoryless node. Can you > e.g. print it somewhere? A very good hint indeed. I would do this diff --git a/include/linux/topology.h b/include/linux/topology.h index eb2fe6edd73c..d9f1b6737e4d 100644 --- a/include/linux/topology.h +++ b/include/linux/topology.h @@ -137,6 +137,8 @@ static inline void set_numa_mem(int node) { this_cpu_write(_numa_mem_, node); _node_numa_mem_[numa_node_id()] = node; + pr_info("%s %d -> %d\n", __FUNCTION__, numa_node_id(), node); + dump_stack(); } #endif Btw. it would be also helpful to get `faddr2line ___slab_alloc+0x334' from your kernel Sachin. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs