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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E6CC433F5 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:53:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236475AbhLQMxo (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Dec 2021 07:53:44 -0500 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.220.29]:54666 "EHLO smtp-out2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236410AbhLQMxm (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Dec 2021 07:53:42 -0500 Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08BA1F38A; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:53:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1639745620; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=chHjN797ND/fWNYOCa6oQhkPiSmUyJSSp5Onplxdy0M=; b=rffHPxKfDp0iLd4+SR57WdnqQitYHR+bHFUU573KH6FDuJJXXjeSz1512j0Tf3Zl/AHlhU zWMw07dB5eM+a42ker2hC3jwrk3tOgN+w6mtzM8rEnDsbJZrNNpSOa1ECySYyYQ1Gb6r4Y J0RpBzwD3yNXsC2fFIcryLanZm98zpE= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5D2AA3B84; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:53:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 13:53:40 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Alexey Makhalov Cc: Dennis Zhou , Eric Dumazet , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , David Hildenbrand , Oscar Salvador , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: fix panic in __alloc_pages Message-ID: References: <77BCF61E-224F-435D-8620-670C9E874A9A@vmware.com> <2291C572-3B22-4BE5-8C7A-0D6A4609547B@vmware.com> <7D1564FA-5AC6-47F3-BC5A-A11716CD40F2@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 10-12-21 10:11:14, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 09-12-21 19:01:03, Alexey Makhalov wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2021, at 5:29 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > On Thu 09-12-21 10:23:52, Alexey Makhalov wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Dec 9, 2021, at 1:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On Thu 09-12-21 09:28:55, Alexey Makhalov wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> [ 0.081777] Node 4 uninitialized by the platform. Please report with boot dmesg. > > >>>> [ 0.081790] Initmem setup node 4 [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000000] > > >>>> ... > > >>>> [ 0.086441] Node 127 uninitialized by the platform. Please report with boot dmesg. > > >>>> [ 0.086454] Initmem setup node 127 [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000000] > > >>> > > >>> Interesting that only those two didn't get a proper arch specific > > >>> initialization. Could you check why? I assume init_cpu_to_node > > >>> doesn't see any CPU pointing at this node. Wondering why that would be > > >>> the case but that can be a bug in the affinity tables. > > >> > > >> My bad shrinking. Not just these 2, but all possible and not present nodes from 4 to 127 > > >> are having this message. > > > > > > Does that mean that your possible (but offline) cpus do not set their > > > affinity? > > > > > Hi Michal, > > > > I didn’t quite gut a question here. Do you mean scheduler affinity for offlined/not present CPUs? > > From the patch, this message should be printed for every possible offlined node: > > for_each_node(nid) { > > ... > > if (!node_online(nid)) { > > pr_warn("Node %d uninitialized by the platform. Please report with boot dmesg.\n", nid); > > Sure, let me expand on this a bit. X86 initialization code > (init_cpu_to_node) does > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { > int node = numa_cpu_node(cpu); > > if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) > continue; > > if (!node_online(node)) > init_memory_less_node(node); > > numa_set_node(cpu, node); > } > > which means that a memory less node is not initialized either when > - your offline CPUs are not listed in possible cpus for some > reason > - or they do not have any node affinity (numa_cpu_node is > NUMA_NO_NODE). > > Could you check what is the reason in your particular case please? Did you have time to look into this Alexey? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs