LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: mmotm 2015-01-22-15-04: qemu failure due to 'mm: memcontrol: remove unnecessary soft limit tree node test'
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:24:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150127172439.GA8623@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1501230908560.15325@gentwo.org>

On Fri 23-01-15 09:17:44, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 
> > Is the assumption of this patch wrong?  Does the specified node have
> > to be online for the fallback to work?

Admittedly, I was checking only SLAB allocator when reviewing and
assuming SLUB would behave in the same way :/
But maybe I have misinterpreted the slab code as well and
get_node(struct kmem_cache *, int node) returns non-NULL for !online
nodes.

> Nodes that are offline have no control structures allocated and thus
> allocations will likely segfault when the address of the controls
> structure for the node is accessed.
> 
> If we wanted to prevent that then every allocation would have to add a
> check to see if the nodes are online which would impact performance.

I have briefly checked the code and it seems that many users are aware
of this and use the same construct Johannes used in the end or they use
cpu_to_node. But then there are other users doing:
net/openvswitch/flow_table.c:
        /* Initialize the default stat node. */
        stats = kmem_cache_alloc_node(flow_stats_cache,
                                      GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, 0);

and this can blow up if Node0 is not online. I haven't checked other
callers but are we sure they all are aware of !online nodes? E.g.
dev_to_node() will return a node which is assigned to a device. I do not
see where exactly this is set to anything else than -1 (I got quickly
lost in set_dev_node callers). E.g. PCI bus sets its affinity from
bus->sysdata which seems to be initialized in pci_acpi_scan_root and
that is checking for an online node. Is it possible that some devices
will get the node from BIOS or by other means?

That being said I have no problem with checking node_online in the memcg
code which was reported to blow up here. I am just thinking whether it
is safe to simply blow up like that.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-01-27 17:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-22 23:05 mmotm 2015-01-22-15-04 uploaded akpm
2015-01-23  5:04 ` mmotm 2015-01-22-15-04: qemu failures due to 'mm: account pmd page tables to the process' Guenter Roeck
2015-01-23 11:13   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2015-01-23 15:07     ` Guenter Roeck
2015-01-23 21:55       ` Andrew Morton
2015-01-24  2:44         ` Guenter Roeck
2015-01-24  3:05           ` Guenter Roeck
2015-01-24  5:52         ` Guenter Roeck
2015-01-26 12:29           ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2015-01-26 14:03             ` Guenter Roeck
2015-01-26 14:17               ` Guenter Roeck
2015-01-27 16:16               ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2015-01-27 16:24                 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-01-27 21:24                   ` Andrew Morton
2015-01-28  6:16                     ` Guenter Roeck
2015-01-23  5:08 ` mmotm 2015-01-22-15-04: qemu failure due to 'mm: memcontrol: remove unnecessary soft limit tree node test' Guenter Roeck
2015-01-23 14:18   ` Johannes Weiner
2015-01-23 15:17     ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 16:02       ` Johannes Weiner
2015-01-23 16:59         ` Guenter Roeck
2015-01-23 17:36           ` Johannes Weiner
2015-01-23 17:38             ` Johannes Weiner
2015-01-24  2:02             ` Guenter Roeck
2015-01-27 17:24       ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2015-01-28 15:03         ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 15:46     ` Guenter Roeck
2015-01-23 16:03       ` Johannes Weiner
2015-01-23 20:20     ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 20:33       ` Guenter Roeck
2015-01-23 21:09         ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-24  7:16           ` Johannes Weiner
2015-01-25 21:36             ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2015-01-26 13:37               ` Johannes Weiner

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=20150127172439.GA8623@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=mm-commits@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    --subject='Re: mmotm 2015-01-22-15-04: qemu failure due to '\''mm: memcontrol: remove unnecessary soft limit tree node test'\''' \
    /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

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).