From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/21] memblock: refactor internal allocation functions
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 19:45:17 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878sywndr6.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190203113915.GC8620@rapoport-lnx>
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 08:39:20PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>> > Currently, memblock has several internal functions with overlapping
>> > functionality. They all call memblock_find_in_range_node() to find free
>> > memory and then reserve the allocated range and mark it with kmemleak.
>> > However, there is difference in the allocation constraints and in fallback
>> > strategies.
...
>>
>> This is causing problems on some of my machines.
...
>>
>> On some of my other systems it does that, and then panics because it
>> can't allocate anything at all:
>>
>> [ 0.000000] numa: NODE_DATA [mem 0x7ffcaee80-0x7ffcb3fff]
>> [ 0.000000] numa: NODE_DATA [mem 0x7ffc99d00-0x7ffc9ee7f]
>> [ 0.000000] numa: NODE_DATA(1) on node 0
>> [ 0.000000] Kernel panic - not syncing: Cannot allocate 20864 bytes for node 16 data
>> [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.0.0-rc4-gccN-next-20190201-gdc4c899 #1
>> [ 0.000000] Call Trace:
>> [ 0.000000] [c0000000011cfca0] [c000000000c11044] dump_stack+0xe8/0x164 (unreliable)
>> [ 0.000000] [c0000000011cfcf0] [c0000000000fdd6c] panic+0x17c/0x3e0
>> [ 0.000000] [c0000000011cfd90] [c000000000f61bc8] initmem_init+0x128/0x260
>> [ 0.000000] [c0000000011cfe60] [c000000000f57940] setup_arch+0x398/0x418
>> [ 0.000000] [c0000000011cfee0] [c000000000f50a94] start_kernel+0xa0/0x684
>> [ 0.000000] [c0000000011cff90] [c00000000000af70] start_here_common+0x1c/0x52c
>> [ 0.000000] Rebooting in 180 seconds..
>>
>>
>> So there's something going wrong there, I haven't had time to dig into
>> it though (Sunday night here).
>
> Yeah, I've misplaced 'nid' and 'MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE' in
> memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid() :(
>
> Can you please check if the below patch fixes the issue on your systems?
Yes it does, thanks.
Tested-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
cheers
> From 5875b7440e985ce551e6da3cb28aa8e9af697e10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 13:35:42 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] memblock: fix parameter order in
> memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid()
>
> The refactoring of internal memblock allocation functions used wrong order
> of parameters in memblock_alloc_range_nid() call from
> memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid().
> Fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> mm/memblock.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index e047933..0151a5b 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1402,8 +1402,8 @@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_phys_alloc_range(phys_addr_t size,
>
> phys_addr_t __init memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
> {
> - return memblock_alloc_range_nid(size, align, 0, nid,
> - MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE);
> + return memblock_alloc_range_nid(size, align, 0,
> + MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, nid);
> }
>
> /**
> --
> 2.7.4
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-04 8:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-21 8:03 [PATCH v2 00/21] Refine memblock API Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:03 ` [PATCH v2 01/21] openrisc: prefer memblock APIs returning virtual address Mike Rapoport
2019-01-27 3:07 ` Stafford Horne
2019-01-21 8:03 ` [PATCH v2 02/21] powerpc: use memblock functions " Mike Rapoport
2019-01-29 9:52 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-21 8:03 ` [PATCH v2 03/21] memblock: replace memblock_alloc_base(ANYWHERE) with memblock_phys_alloc Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:03 ` [PATCH v2 04/21] memblock: drop memblock_alloc_base_nid() Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:03 ` [PATCH v2 05/21] memblock: emphasize that memblock_alloc_range() returns a physical address Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:03 ` [PATCH v2 06/21] memblock: memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(): don't panic Mike Rapoport
2019-01-25 17:45 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-01-25 19:32 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-01-29 9:56 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-29 9:58 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-21 8:03 ` [PATCH v2 07/21] memblock: memblock_phys_alloc(): " Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:03 ` [PATCH v2 08/21] memblock: drop __memblock_alloc_base() Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:03 ` [PATCH v2 09/21] memblock: drop memblock_alloc_base() Mike Rapoport
2019-01-29 10:29 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-21 8:03 ` [PATCH v2 10/21] memblock: refactor internal allocation functions Mike Rapoport
2019-02-03 9:39 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-02-03 10:04 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-02-03 11:39 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-02-04 8:45 ` Michael Ellerman [this message]
2019-02-04 23:08 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-01-21 8:03 ` [PATCH v2 11/21] memblock: make memblock_find_in_range_node() and choose_memblock_flags() static Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:03 ` [PATCH v2 12/21] arch: use memblock_alloc() instead of memblock_alloc_from(size, align, 0) Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:04 ` [PATCH v2 13/21] arch: don't memset(0) memory returned by memblock_alloc() Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:04 ` [PATCH v2 14/21] ia64: add checks for the return value of memblock_alloc*() Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:04 ` [PATCH v2 15/21] sparc: " Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:04 ` [PATCH v2 16/21] mm/percpu: " Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:04 ` [PATCH v2 17/21] init/main: " Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:04 ` [PATCH v2 18/21] swiotlb: " Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:04 ` [PATCH v2 19/21] treewide: " Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:39 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-01-21 17:18 ` Rob Herring
2019-01-31 6:07 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-31 6:41 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-01-31 6:44 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-31 7:07 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-01-31 7:14 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-01-31 15:23 ` Max Filippov
2019-01-21 8:04 ` [PATCH v2 20/21] memblock: memblock_alloc_try_nid: don't panic Mike Rapoport
2019-01-21 8:04 ` [PATCH v2 21/21] memblock: drop memblock_alloc_*_nopanic() variants Mike Rapoport
2019-01-30 13:38 ` Petr Mladek
2019-09-24 17:52 ` [PATCH v2 00/21] Refine memblock API Adam Ford
2019-09-25 12:12 ` Fabio Estevam
2019-09-25 12:17 ` Adam Ford
2019-09-25 15:17 ` Fabio Estevam
2019-09-26 13:09 ` Adam Ford
2019-09-26 16:04 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-09-26 19:35 ` Adam Ford
2019-09-28 7:33 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-09-29 13:33 ` Adam Ford
2019-10-02 0:14 ` Adam Ford
2019-10-02 7:36 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-10-02 11:14 ` Adam Ford
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=878sywndr6.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au \
--to=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).