Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: drop 4MB restriction on minimal NUMA node size

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 17.10.23 09:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 17.10.23 08:22, Mike Rapoport wrote:
From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx>

Qi Zheng reports crashes in a production environment and provides a
simplified example as a reproducer:

    For example, if we use qemu to start a two NUMA node kernel,
    one of the nodes has 2M memory (less than NODE_MIN_SIZE),
    and the other node has 2G, then we will encounter the
    following panic:

    [    0.149844] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000000
    [    0.150783] #PF: supervisor write access in kernel mode
    [    0.151488] #PF: error_code(0x0002) - not-present page
    <...>
    [    0.156056] RIP: 0010:_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x22/0x40
    <...>
    [    0.169781] Call Trace:
    [    0.170159]  <TASK>
    [    0.170448]  deactivate_slab+0x187/0x3c0
    [    0.171031]  ? bootstrap+0x1b/0x10e
    [    0.171559]  ? preempt_count_sub+0x9/0xa0
    [    0.172145]  ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x12c/0x440
    [    0.172735]  ? bootstrap+0x1b/0x10e
    [    0.173236]  bootstrap+0x6b/0x10e
    [    0.173720]  kmem_cache_init+0x10a/0x188
    [    0.174240]  start_kernel+0x415/0x6ac
    [    0.174738]  secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xe0/0xeb
    [    0.175417]  </TASK>
    [    0.175713] Modules linked in:
    [    0.176117] CR2: 0000000000000000

The crashes happen because of inconsistency between nodemask that has
nodes with less than 4MB as memoryless and the actual memory fed into
core mm.

The commit 9391a3f9c7f1 ("[PATCH] x86_64: Clear more state when ignoring
empty node in SRAT parsing") that introduced minimal size of a NUMA node
does not explain why a node size cannot be less than 4MB and what boot
failures this restriction might fix.

Since then a lot has changed and core mm won't confuse badly about small
node sizes.

Drop the limitation for the minimal node size.

Reported-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230212110305.93670-1-zhengqi.arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/

That's just a resend I assume? Or has anything changed?

Saw the other mail now, so just a resend.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux