lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 08:23:01PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 30-03-20 20:51:00, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 09:42:46AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Sat 28-03-20 11:31:17, Hoan Tran wrote:
> > > > In NUMA layout which nodes have memory ranges that span across other nodes,
> > > > the mm driver can detect the memory node id incorrectly.
> > > >
> > > > For example, with layout below
> > > > Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx 0000 xxxx
> > > > Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 xxxx 1111
> > > >
> > > > Note:
> > > > - Memory from low to high
> > > > - 0/1: Node id
> > > > - x: Invalid memory of a node
> > > >
> > > > When mm probes the memory map, without CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> > > > config, mm only checks the memory validity but not the node id.
> > > > Because of that, Node 1 also detects the memory from node 0 as below
> > > > when it scans from the start address to the end address of node 1.
> > > >
> > > > Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx
> > > > Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 1111 1111
> > > >
> > > > This layout could occur on any architecture. Most of them enables
> > > > this config by default with CONFIG_NUMA. This patch, by default, enables
> > > > CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES or uses early_pfn_in_nid() for NUMA.
> > >
> > > I am not opposed to this at all. It reduces the config space and that is
> > > a good thing on its own. The history has shown that meory layout might
> > > be really wild wrt NUMA. The config is only used for early_pfn_in_nid
> > > which is clearly an overkill.
> > >
> > > Your description doesn't really explain why this is safe though. The
> > > history of this config is somehow messy, though. Mike has tried
> > > to remove it a94b3ab7eab4 ("[PATCH] mm: remove arch independent
> > > NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES") just to be reintroduced by 7516795739bd
> > > ("[PATCH] Reintroduce NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES for powerpc") without any
> > > reasoning what so ever. This doesn't make it really easy see whether
> > > reasons for reintroduction are still there. Maybe there are some subtle
> > > dependencies. I do not see any TBH but that might be burried deep in an
> > > arch specific code.
> >
> > I've looked at this a bit more and it seems that the check for
> > early_pfn_in_nid() in memmap_init_zone() can be simply removed.
> >
> > The commits you've mentioned were way before the addition of
> > HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP and the whole infrastructure that calculates zone
> > sizes and boundaries based on the memblock node map.
> > So, the memmap_init_zone() is called when zone boundaries are already
> > within a node.
>
> But zones from different nodes might overlap in the pfn range. And this
> check is there to skip over those overlapping areas.

Maybe I mis-read the code, but I don't see how this could happen. In the
HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP=y case, free_area_init_node() calls
calculate_node_totalpages() that ensures that node->node_zones are entirely
within the node because this is checked in zone_spanned_pages_in_node().
So, for zones from different nodes to overlap in the pfn range the nodes
themself should overlap. Is this even possible?


> The only way to skip over this check I can see is to do a different pfn
> walk and go through memblock ranges which are guaranteed to belong to a
> single node.
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-31 10:15    [W:0.091 / U:2.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site