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 BE89AC433FE for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 16:09:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239470AbhLGQNZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2021 11:13:25 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:44389 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239468AbhLGQNZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2021 11:13:25 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1638893394; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject: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=bnTROK0sRUs6y6/xGbMg2/jiQ98PjmkglwIQKpx2ZZY=; b=NOjRsrkYJ5JKAc7K7wDOQUvMMW8ycpY5CTQRsV24tdANBD+5mCNTXbC/FRSUlOVfCygHOn vyqfpEWIOgFMDKFwes0TllGxNvpNnBAPemgtf42sqDR2cBiJbrGq8mSiAFGwmcT1gkRllW Oh9Mpn1KQc5D18Nmrsl/7t043OOt8GM= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-566-dhijZ48cMdSNYYhmNeTPTA-1; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 11:09:53 -0500 X-MC-Unique: dhijZ48cMdSNYYhmNeTPTA-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 138-20020a1c0090000000b00338bb803204so7949343wma.1 for ; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 08:09:53 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:organization:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bnTROK0sRUs6y6/xGbMg2/jiQ98PjmkglwIQKpx2ZZY=; b=BQR+ZtSlAnmNLpK7ou9Gy9xCEBiqHuVTxcnwJpfCtXh5yUpggRAcED8MdEmx3vALI5 0W13J34VATJLQgmZPIFGCBQH/xfbhDUGzY9YVB6yBJs3YMPHEQHkHXW/u2LC9a0YEkAp Lm9oWCnpd/U7ZG2VukzZ9rUIEAbRZ1IvMg5PpSm8PocEoBi/EVjIxEQwQ2peYNLwjwHb egKy/eda/b5FjLoTXN0zPY0/Q7U1KwvBKKzwt8H4vMZyDAu7dGiLfUkAk7jLnthcfYr5 gqbPFI4bEM7JqtO8Zg19Il0N6zl/uoS+kNsx8MqQOK3Ei7M6AgsZCboGCQRd9tQuDgih tR6g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531HNPvLa7GAkPwTJB86KnF8nqtEsv7/Z9yKqDJzlig+m7RD4nco 5gVp1cIahgbiTWMwdjbMdmQ9alBrRDXuhSf+Y60dYcCgTttVzjVQEM6OG2bU7JzJDICZCXLT+ws ++mWUQDQvzKZ1n62G X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5385:: with SMTP id d5mr50448133wrv.132.1638893392054; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 08:09:52 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx9ldVyRrmB5nuJ47FSKKSCjaAcG/QjMhUIbKA/W1EzCMV866Dtf4wOnleVEUwats11J6c4lg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5385:: with SMTP id d5mr50448100wrv.132.1638893391795; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 08:09:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.3.132] (p4ff23e57.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [79.242.62.87]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q123sm2958207wma.30.2021.12.07.08.09.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Dec 2021 08:09:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:09:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: fix panic in __alloc_pages Content-Language: en-US To: Michal Hocko Cc: Alexey Makhalov , Dennis Zhou , Eric Dumazet , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , Oscar Salvador , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" References: <5239D699-523C-4F0C-923A-B068E476043E@vmware.com> <1043a1a4-b7f2-8730-d192-7cab9f15ee24@redhat.com> <77e785e6-cf34-0cff-26a5-852d3786a9b8@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On 07.12.21 16:56, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 07-12-21 16:34:30, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 07.12.21 16:29, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Tue 07-12-21 16:09:39, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> On 07.12.21 14:23, Michal Hocko wrote: >>>>> On Tue 07-12-21 13:28:31, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> But maybe I am missing something important regarding online vs. offline >>>>>> nodes that your patch changes? >>>>> >>>>> I am relying on alloc_node_data setting the node online. But if we are >>>>> to change the call to arch_alloc_node_data then the patch needs to be >>>>> more involved. Here is what I have right now. If this happens to be the >>>>> right way then there is some additional work to sync up with the hotplug >>>>> code. >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c >>>>> index c5952749ad40..a296e934ad2f 100644 >>>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c >>>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c >>>>> @@ -8032,8 +8032,23 @@ void __init free_area_init(unsigned long *max_zone_pfn) >>>>> /* Initialise every node */ >>>>> mminit_verify_pageflags_layout(); >>>>> setup_nr_node_ids(); >>>>> - for_each_online_node(nid) { >>>>> - pg_data_t *pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid); >>>>> + for_each_node(nid) { >>>>> + pg_data_t *pgdat; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (!node_online(nid)) { >>>>> + pr_warn("Node %d uninitialized by the platform. Please report with memory map.\n", nid); >>>>> + pgdat = arch_alloc_nodedata(nid); >>>>> + pgdat->per_cpu_nodestats = alloc_percpu(struct per_cpu_nodestat); >>>>> + arch_refresh_nodedata(nid, pgdat); >>>>> + node_set_online(nid); >>>> >>>> Setting all possible nodes online might result in quite some QE noice, >>>> because all these nodes will then be visible in the sysfs and >>>> try_offline_nodes() is essentially for the trash. >>> >>> I am not sure I follow. I believe sysfs will not get populate because I >>> do not call register_one_node. >> >> arch/x86/kernel/topology.c:topology_init() >> >> for_each_online_node(i) >> register_one_node(i); > > Right you are. > >>> You are right that try_offline_nodes will be reduce which is good imho. >>> More changes will be possible (hopefully to drop some ugly code) on top >>> of this change (or any other that achieves that there are no NULL pgdat >>> for possible nodes). >>> >> >> No to exposing actually offline nodes to user space via sysfs. > > Why is that a problem with the sysfs for non-populated nodes? > https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20200428093836.27190-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com/t/ Contains some points -- certainly nothing unfixable but it clearly shows that users expect only nodes with actual memory and cpus to be online -- that's why we export the possible+online state to user space. My point is to be careful with such drastic changes and do one step at a time. I think preallocation of the pgdat is a reasonable thing to have without changing user-space visible semantics or even in-kernel semantics. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb