Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to better support memoryless node

From	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to better support memoryless node
Date	2015-10-09 08:00 +0200
Message-ID	<qhySK-1As-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<pYj7P-3i1-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <pYj7Q-3i1-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <pZkbv-2Gm-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <pZlKi-503-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qhpZ7-5Jz-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	Intel

Show all headers | View raw

On 2015/10/9 4:20, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:18:15 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Patil, Kiran wrote:
>>
>>> Acked-by: Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@intel.com>
>>
>> Where's the call to preempt_disable() to prevent kernels with preemption 
>> from making numa_node_id() invalid during this iteration?
> 
> David asked this question twice, received no answer and now the patch
> is in the maintainer tree, destined for mainline.
> 
> If I was asked this question I would respond
> 
>   The use of numa_mem_id() is racy and best-effort.  If the unlikely
>   race occurs, the memory allocation will occur on the wrong node, the
>   overall result being very slightly suboptimal performance.  The
>   existing use of numa_node_id() suffers from the same issue.
> 
> But I'm not the person proposing the patch.  Please don't just ignore
> reviewer comments!
Hi Andrew,
	Apologize for the slow response due to personal reasons!
And thanks for answering the question from David. To be honest,
I didn't know how to answer this question before. Actually this
question has puzzled me for a long time when dealing with memory
hot-removal. For normal cases, it only causes sub-optimal memory
allocation if schedule event happens between querying NUMA node id
and calling alloc_pages_node(). But what happens if system run into
following execution sequence?
1) node = numa_mem_id();
2) memory hot-removal event triggers
2.1) remove affected memory
2.2) reset pgdat to zero if node becomes empty after memory removal
3) alloc_pages_node(), which may access zero-ed pgdat structure.

I haven't found a mechanism to protect system from above sequence yet,
so puzzled for a long time already:(. Does stop_machine() protect
system from such a execution sequence?
Thanks!
Gerry

> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Thread

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to  better support memoryless node Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-10-08 22:30 +0200
  Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to  better support memoryless node Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> - 2015-10-09 08:00 +0200
    Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to  better support memoryless node Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> - 2015-10-09 11:10 +0200
      Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to  better support memoryless node Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> - 2015-10-09 11:30 +0200

csiph-web