Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon 11-06-18 08:43:03, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 08:32:10PM +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
>> > Hi Michal,
>> >
>> > On 2018/6/11 16:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > > On Mon 11-06-18 11:23:18, Xie XiuQi wrote:
>> > >> Hi Michal,
>> > >>
>> > >> On 2018/6/7 20:21, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > >>> On Thu 07-06-18 19:55:53, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> > >>>> On 2018/6/7 18:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > >>> [...]
>> > >>>>> I am not sure I have the full context but pci_acpi_scan_root calls
>> > >>>>> kzalloc_node(sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL, node)
>> > >>>>> and that should fall back to whatever node that is online. Offline node
>> > >>>>> shouldn't keep any pages behind. So there must be something else going
>> > >>>>> on here and the patch is not the right way to handle it. What does
>> > >>>>> faddr2line __alloc_pages_nodemask+0xf0 tells on this kernel?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> The whole context is:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> The system is booted with a NUMA node has no memory attaching to it
>> > >>>> (memory-less NUMA node), also with NR_CPUS less than CPUs presented
>> > >>>> in MADT, so CPUs on this memory-less node are not brought up, and
>> > >>>> this NUMA node will not be online (but SRAT presents this NUMA node);
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Devices attaching to this NUMA node such as PCI host bridge still
>> > >>>> return the valid NUMA node via _PXM, but actually that valid NUMA node
>> > >>>> is not online which lead to this issue.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> But we should have other numa nodes on the zonelists so the allocator
>> > >>> should fall back to other node. If the zonelist is not intiailized
>> > >>> properly, though, then this can indeed show up as a problem. Knowing
>> > >>> which exact place has blown up would help get a better picture...
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >> I specific a non-exist node to allocate memory using kzalloc_node,
>> > >> and got this following error message.
>> > >>
>> > >> And I found out there is just a VM_WARN, but it does not prevent the memory
>> > >> allocation continue.
>> > >>
>> > >> This nid would be use to access NODE_DADA(nid), so if nid is invalid,
>> > >> it would cause oops here.
>> > >>
>> > >> 459 /*
>> > >> 460 * Allocate pages, preferring the node given as nid. The node must be valid and
>> > >> 461 * online. For more general interface, see alloc_pages_node().
>> > >> 462 */
>> > >> 463 static inline struct page *
>> > >> 464 __alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
>> > >> 465 {
>> > >> 466 VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES);
>> > >> 467 VM_WARN_ON(!node_online(nid));
>> > >> 468
>> > >> 469 return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, nid);
>> > >> 470 }
>> > >> 471
>> > >>
>> > >> (I wrote a ko, to allocate memory on a non-exist node using kzalloc_node().)
>> > >
>> > > OK, so this is an artificialy broken code, right. You shouldn't get a
>> > > non-existent node via standard APIs AFAICS. The original report was
>> > > about an existing node which is offline AFAIU. That would be a different
>> > > case. If I am missing something and there are legitimate users that try
>> > > to allocate from non-existing nodes then we should handle that in
>> > > node_zonelist.
>> >
>> > I think hanjun's comments may help to understood this question:
>> > - NUMA node will be built if CPUs and (or) memory are valid on this NUMA
>> > node;
>> >
>> > - But if we boot the system with memory-less node and also with
>> > CONFIG_NR_CPUS less than CPUs in SRAT, for example, 64 CPUs total with 4
>> > NUMA nodes, 16 CPUs on each NUMA node, if we boot with
>> > CONFIG_NR_CPUS=48, then we will not built numa node for node 3, but with
>> > devices on that numa node, alloc memory will be panic because NUMA node
>> > 3 is not a valid node.
>
> Hmm, but this is not a memory-less node. It sounds like a misconfigured
> kernel to me or the broken initialization. Each CPU should have a
> fallback numa node to be used.
>
>> > I triggered this BUG on arm64 platform, and I found a similar bug has
>> > been fixed on x86 platform. So I sent a similar patch for this bug.
>> >
>> > Or, could we consider to fix it in the mm subsystem?
>>
>> The patch below (b755de8dfdfe) seems like totally the wrong direction.
>> I don't think we want every caller of kzalloc_node() to have check for
>> node_online().
>
> absolutely.
>
>> Why would memory on an off-line node even be in the allocation pool?
>> I wouldn't expect that memory to be put in the pool until the node
>> comes online and the memory is accessible, so this sounds like some
>> kind of setup issue.
>>
>> But I'm definitely not an mm person.
>
> Well, the standard way to handle memory less NUMA nodes is to simply
> fallback to the closest NUMA node. We even have an API for that
> (numa_mem_id).
CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS node is not enabled on arm64 which means we end
up returning the original node in the fallback path.
Xie, does the below patch help? I can submit a proper patch if this
fixes the issue for you.
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] arm64/numa: Enable memoryless numa nodes
Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@xxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig | 4 ++++
arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 2 ++
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index eb2cf4938f6d..5317e9aa93ab 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -756,6 +756,10 @@ config USE_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID
def_bool y
depends on NUMA
+config HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES
+ def_bool y
+ depends on NUMA
+
config HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
def_bool y
depends on NUMA
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index dad128ba98bf..c699dcfe93de 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -73,6 +73,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpumask_of_node);
static void map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid)
{
set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, nid);
+ set_numa_mem(local_memory_node(nid));
+
if (nid >= 0)
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[nid]);
}
--
2.17.0
