Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 08:39:20PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > Currently, memblock has several internal functions with overlapping
>> > functionality. They all call memblock_find_in_range_node() to find free
>> > memory and then reserve the allocated range and mark it with kmemleak.
>> > However, there is difference in the allocation constraints and in fallback
>> > strategies.
...
>>
>> This is causing problems on some of my machines.
...
>>
>> On some of my other systems it does that, and then panics because it
>> can't allocate anything at all:
>>
>> [ 0.000000] numa: NODE_DATA [mem 0x7ffcaee80-0x7ffcb3fff]
>> [ 0.000000] numa: NODE_DATA [mem 0x7ffc99d00-0x7ffc9ee7f]
>> [ 0.000000] numa: NODE_DATA(1) on node 0
>> [ 0.000000] Kernel panic - not syncing: Cannot allocate 20864 bytes for node 16 data
>> [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.0.0-rc4-gccN-next-20190201-gdc4c899 #1
>> [ 0.000000] Call Trace:
>> [ 0.000000] [c0000000011cfca0] [c000000000c11044] dump_stack+0xe8/0x164 (unreliable)
>> [ 0.000000] [c0000000011cfcf0] [c0000000000fdd6c] panic+0x17c/0x3e0
>> [ 0.000000] [c0000000011cfd90] [c000000000f61bc8] initmem_init+0x128/0x260
>> [ 0.000000] [c0000000011cfe60] [c000000000f57940] setup_arch+0x398/0x418
>> [ 0.000000] [c0000000011cfee0] [c000000000f50a94] start_kernel+0xa0/0x684
>> [ 0.000000] [c0000000011cff90] [c00000000000af70] start_here_common+0x1c/0x52c
>> [ 0.000000] Rebooting in 180 seconds..
>>
>>
>> So there's something going wrong there, I haven't had time to dig into
>> it though (Sunday night here).
>
> Yeah, I've misplaced 'nid' and 'MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE' in
> memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid() :(
>
> Can you please check if the below patch fixes the issue on your systems?
Yes it does, thanks.
Tested-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cheers
> From 5875b7440e985ce551e6da3cb28aa8e9af697e10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 13:35:42 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] memblock: fix parameter order in
> memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid()
>
> The refactoring of internal memblock allocation functions used wrong order
> of parameters in memblock_alloc_range_nid() call from
> memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid().
> Fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/memblock.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index e047933..0151a5b 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1402,8 +1402,8 @@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_phys_alloc_range(phys_addr_t size,
>
> phys_addr_t __init memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
> {
> - return memblock_alloc_range_nid(size, align, 0, nid,
> - MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE);
> + return memblock_alloc_range_nid(size, align, 0,
> + MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, nid);
> }
>
> /**
> --
> 2.7.4
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
