On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:28:29AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 08:15:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:03:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > So I think this patch is broken (still).
>
> I am assuming the lack of complaints is that it is not a heavily executed
> path. I expect that you (and Rik) are hitting this as part of automatic
> NUMA balancing. Still a bug, just slightly less urgent if NUMA balancing
> is the reproduction case.
I thought it was, we crashed somewhere suspiciously close, but no. You
need shared mpols for this to actually trigger and the NUMA stuff
doesn't use that.
> > + if (unlikely((unsigned)nid >= MAX_NUMNODES))
> > + goto again;
> > +
>
> MAX_NUMNODES is unrelated to anything except that it might prevent a crash
> and even then nr_online_nodes is probably what you wanted and even that
> assumes the NUMA node numbering is contiguous.
I used whatever nodemask.h did to detect end-of-bitmap and they use
MAX_NUMNODES. See __next_node() and for_each_node() like.
MAX_NUMNODES doesn't assume contiguous numbers since its the actual size
of the bitmap, nr_online_nodes would hoever.
> The real concern is whether
> the updated mask is an allowed target for the updated memory policy. If
> it's not then "nid" can be pointing off the deep end somewhere. With this
> conversion to a for loop there is race after you check nnodes where target
> gets set to 0 and then return a nid of -1 which I suppose will just blow
> up differently but it's fixable.
But but but, I did i <= target, which will match when target == 0 so
you'll get at least a single iteration and nid will be set.
> This? Untested. Fixes implicit types while it's there. Note the use of
> first node and (c < target) to guarantee nid gets set and that the first
> potential node is still used as an interleave target.
>
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index 7431001..ae880c3 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -1755,22 +1755,24 @@ unsigned slab_node(void)
> }
>
> /* Do static interleaving for a VMA with known offset. */
> -static unsigned offset_il_node(struct mempolicy *pol,
> +static unsigned int offset_il_node(struct mempolicy *pol,
> struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long off)
> {
> - unsigned nnodes = nodes_weight(pol->v.nodes);
> - unsigned target;
> - int c;
> - int nid = -1;
> + unsigned int nr_nodes, target;
> + int i, nid;
>
> - if (!nnodes)
> +again:
> + nr_nodes = nodes_weight(pol->v.nodes);
> + if (!nr_nodes)
> return numa_node_id();
> - target = (unsigned int)off % nnodes;
> - c = 0;
> - do {
> + target = (unsigned int)off % nr_nodes;
> + for (i = 0, nid = first_node(pol->v.nodes); i < target; i++)
> nid = next_node(nid, pol->v.nodes);
> - c++;
> - } while (c <= target);
> +
> + /* Policy nodemask can potentially update in parallel */
> + if (unlikely(!node_isset(nid, pol->v.nodes)))
> + goto again;
> +
> return nid;
> }
So I explicitly didn't use the node_isset() test because that's more
likely to trigger than the nid >= MAX_NUMNODES test. Its fine to return
a node that isn't actually part of the mask anymore -- a race is a race
anyway.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>