| Message ID | 20240319120026.2246389-2-rrichter@amd.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | SRAT/CEDT fixes and updates | expand |
Robert Richter wrote: > For configurations that have the kconfig option NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO > disabled, the SRAT lookup done with numa_fill_memblks() fails > returning NUMA_NO_MEMBLK (-1). An existing SRAT memory range cannot be > found for a CFMWS address range. This causes the addition of a > duplicate numa_memblk with a different node id and a subsequent page > fault and kernel crash during boot. > > numa_fill_memblks() is implemented and used in the init section only. > The option NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO is only for the case when NUMA data will > be used outside of init. So fix the SRAT lookup by moving > numa_fill_memblks() out of the NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO block to make it > always available in the init section. > > Note that the issue was initially introduced with [1]. But since > phys_to_target_node() was originally used that returned the valid node > 0, an additional numa_memblk was not added. Though, the node id was > wrong too. > > [1] fd49f99c1809 ("ACPI: NUMA: Add a node and memblk for each CFMWS not in SRAT") > > Fixes: 8f1004679987 ("ACPI/NUMA: Apply SRAT proximity domain to entire CFMWS window") > Cc: Derick Marks <derick.w.marks@intel.com> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> > --- > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > index 65e9a6e391c0..ce84ba86e69e 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > @@ -929,6 +929,8 @@ int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memory_add_physaddr_to_nid); > > +#endif > + > static int __init cmp_memblk(const void *a, const void *b) > { > const struct numa_memblk *ma = *(const struct numa_memblk **)a; > @@ -1001,5 +1003,3 @@ int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) > } > return 0; > } > - > -#endif Does this achieve the goal without an additional hunk like this? diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h index 1be13b2dfe8b..1aaa447ef24b 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h @@ -37,9 +37,9 @@ extern int phys_to_target_node(phys_addr_t start); #define phys_to_target_node phys_to_target_node extern int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start); #define memory_add_physaddr_to_nid memory_add_physaddr_to_nid +#endif extern int numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end); #define numa_fill_memblks numa_fill_memblks -#endif #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */ #endif /* _ASM_X86_SPARSEMEM_H */
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 01:00:23PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote: > For configurations that have the kconfig option NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO > disabled, the SRAT lookup done with numa_fill_memblks() fails > returning NUMA_NO_MEMBLK (-1). An existing SRAT memory range cannot be > found for a CFMWS address range. This causes the addition of a > duplicate numa_memblk with a different node id and a subsequent page > fault and kernel crash during boot. > > numa_fill_memblks() is implemented and used in the init section only. > The option NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO is only for the case when NUMA data will > be used outside of init. So fix the SRAT lookup by moving > numa_fill_memblks() out of the NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO block to make it > always available in the init section. > > Note that the issue was initially introduced with [1]. But since > phys_to_target_node() was originally used that returned the valid node > 0, an additional numa_memblk was not added. Though, the node id was > wrong too. Hi Richard, I recall a bit of wrangling w #defines to make ARM64 and LOONGARCH build. I'm seeing an x86 build error today: >> arch/x86/mm/numa.c:957:12: error: redefinition of 'numa_fill_memblks' 957 | int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) include/linux/numa.h:40:26: note: previous definition of 'numa_fill_memblks' with type +'int(u64, u64)' {aka 'int(long long unsigned int, long long unsigned int)'} 40 | static inline int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In addition to what you suggest, would something like this diff below be a useful safety measure to distinguish num_fill_memblks() success (rc:0) and possible non-existence (rc:-1). I don't think it hurts to take a second look using phys_to_target_node() (totall untested) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c index 070a52e4daa8..0c48fe32ced4 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c @@ -437,9 +437,16 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_cfmws(union acpi_subtable_headers *header, * found for any portion of the window to cover the entire * window. */ - if (!numa_fill_memblks(start, end)) + rc = numa_fill_memblks(start, end); + if (!rc) return 0; + if (rc == NUMA_NO_MEMBLK) { + node = phys_to_target_node(start); + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE) + return 0; + } + /* No SRAT description. Create a new node. */ --Alison > > [1] fd49f99c1809 ("ACPI: NUMA: Add a node and memblk for each CFMWS not in SRAT") > > Fixes: 8f1004679987 ("ACPI/NUMA: Apply SRAT proximity domain to entire CFMWS window") > Cc: Derick Marks <derick.w.marks@intel.com> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> > --- > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > index 65e9a6e391c0..ce84ba86e69e 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > @@ -929,6 +929,8 @@ int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memory_add_physaddr_to_nid); > > +#endif > + > static int __init cmp_memblk(const void *a, const void *b) > { > const struct numa_memblk *ma = *(const struct numa_memblk **)a; > @@ -1001,5 +1003,3 @@ int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) > } > return 0; > } > - > -#endif > -- > 2.39.2 >
Dan, On 19.03.24 13:15:48, Dan Williams wrote: > Does this achieve the goal without an additional hunk like this? > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h > index 1be13b2dfe8b..1aaa447ef24b 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h > @@ -37,9 +37,9 @@ extern int phys_to_target_node(phys_addr_t start); > #define phys_to_target_node phys_to_target_node > extern int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start); > #define memory_add_physaddr_to_nid memory_add_physaddr_to_nid > +#endif > extern int numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end); > #define numa_fill_memblks numa_fill_memblks > -#endif > #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */ > > #endif /* _ASM_X86_SPARSEMEM_H */ right, there are some build issues that need to be fixed in this patch. Sorry for that. Thanks, -Robert
Alison, On 20.03.24 10:46:07, Alison Schofield wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 01:00:23PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote: > > For configurations that have the kconfig option NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO > > disabled, the SRAT lookup done with numa_fill_memblks() fails > > returning NUMA_NO_MEMBLK (-1). An existing SRAT memory range cannot be > > found for a CFMWS address range. This causes the addition of a > > duplicate numa_memblk with a different node id and a subsequent page > > fault and kernel crash during boot. > > > > numa_fill_memblks() is implemented and used in the init section only. > > The option NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO is only for the case when NUMA data will > > be used outside of init. So fix the SRAT lookup by moving > > numa_fill_memblks() out of the NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO block to make it > > always available in the init section. > > > > Note that the issue was initially introduced with [1]. But since > > phys_to_target_node() was originally used that returned the valid node > > 0, an additional numa_memblk was not added. Though, the node id was > > wrong too. > > Hi Richard, > > I recall a bit of wrangling w #defines to make ARM64 and LOONGARCH build. > I'm seeing an x86 build error today: > > >> arch/x86/mm/numa.c:957:12: error: redefinition of 'numa_fill_memblks' > 957 | int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) > > include/linux/numa.h:40:26: note: previous definition of 'numa_fill_memblks' with type > +'int(u64, u64)' {aka 'int(long long unsigned int, long long unsigned int)'} > 40 | static inline int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > In addition to what you suggest, would something like this diff below be > a useful safety measure to distinguish num_fill_memblks() success (rc:0) > and possible non-existence (rc:-1). I don't think it hurts to take a > second look using phys_to_target_node() (totall untested) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c > index 070a52e4daa8..0c48fe32ced4 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c > @@ -437,9 +437,16 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_cfmws(union acpi_subtable_headers *header, > * found for any portion of the window to cover the entire > * window. > */ > - if (!numa_fill_memblks(start, end)) > + rc = numa_fill_memblks(start, end); > + if (!rc) > return 0; > > + if (rc == NUMA_NO_MEMBLK) { > + node = phys_to_target_node(start); > + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE) > + return 0; > + } > + for non-x86 the numa_add_memblk() function looks good in a way that it is able to handle presumable overlapping regions. numa_fill_memblks() would just fail then and numa_add_memblk() being called. For x86 we need numa_fill_memblks() since x86 specific numa_add_memblk() cannot handle the overlapping case. That said, we do not need the 2nd check. It looks to me that it actually breaks non-x86 as the whole block may not be registered (if it is larger than anything existing). For x86 the 2nd check may never happen if numa_fill_memblks() is always enabled (which is this patch for). So we should be good without your change. Thanks, -Robert > /* No SRAT description. Create a new node. */ > > --Alison > > > > > [1] fd49f99c1809 ("ACPI: NUMA: Add a node and memblk for each CFMWS not in SRAT") > > > > Fixes: 8f1004679987 ("ACPI/NUMA: Apply SRAT proximity domain to entire CFMWS window") > > Cc: Derick Marks <derick.w.marks@intel.com> > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > > Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> > > --- > > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > index 65e9a6e391c0..ce84ba86e69e 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > @@ -929,6 +929,8 @@ int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start) > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memory_add_physaddr_to_nid); > > > > +#endif > > + > > static int __init cmp_memblk(const void *a, const void *b) > > { > > const struct numa_memblk *ma = *(const struct numa_memblk **)a; > > @@ -1001,5 +1003,3 @@ int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) > > } > > return 0; > > } > > - > > -#endif > > -- > > 2.39.2 > >
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 05:55:57PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote: > Alison, > > On 20.03.24 10:46:07, Alison Schofield wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 01:00:23PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote: > > > For configurations that have the kconfig option NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO > > > disabled, the SRAT lookup done with numa_fill_memblks() fails > > > returning NUMA_NO_MEMBLK (-1). An existing SRAT memory range cannot be > > > found for a CFMWS address range. This causes the addition of a > > > duplicate numa_memblk with a different node id and a subsequent page > > > fault and kernel crash during boot. > > > > > > numa_fill_memblks() is implemented and used in the init section only. > > > The option NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO is only for the case when NUMA data will > > > be used outside of init. So fix the SRAT lookup by moving > > > numa_fill_memblks() out of the NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO block to make it > > > always available in the init section. > > > > > > Note that the issue was initially introduced with [1]. But since > > > phys_to_target_node() was originally used that returned the valid node > > > 0, an additional numa_memblk was not added. Though, the node id was > > > wrong too. > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > I recall a bit of wrangling w #defines to make ARM64 and LOONGARCH build. > > I'm seeing an x86 build error today: > > > > >> arch/x86/mm/numa.c:957:12: error: redefinition of 'numa_fill_memblks' > > 957 | int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) > > > > include/linux/numa.h:40:26: note: previous definition of 'numa_fill_memblks' with type > > +'int(u64, u64)' {aka 'int(long long unsigned int, long long unsigned int)'} > > 40 | static inline int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > In addition to what you suggest, would something like this diff below be > > a useful safety measure to distinguish num_fill_memblks() success (rc:0) > > and possible non-existence (rc:-1). I don't think it hurts to take a > > second look using phys_to_target_node() (totall untested) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c > > index 070a52e4daa8..0c48fe32ced4 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c > > @@ -437,9 +437,16 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_cfmws(union acpi_subtable_headers *header, > > * found for any portion of the window to cover the entire > > * window. > > */ > > - if (!numa_fill_memblks(start, end)) > > + rc = numa_fill_memblks(start, end); > > + if (!rc) > > return 0; > > > > + if (rc == NUMA_NO_MEMBLK) { > > + node = phys_to_target_node(start); > > + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE) > > + return 0; > > + } > > + > > for non-x86 the numa_add_memblk() function looks good in a way that it > is able to handle presumable overlapping regions. numa_fill_memblks() > would just fail then and numa_add_memblk() being called. For x86 we > need numa_fill_memblks() since x86 specific numa_add_memblk() cannot > handle the overlapping case. > > That said, we do not need the 2nd check. It looks to me that it > actually breaks non-x86 as the whole block may not be registered (if > it is larger than anything existing). > > For x86 the 2nd check may never happen if numa_fill_memblks() is > always enabled (which is this patch for). Hi Robert, (<-- got it right this time ;)) I wasn't thinking of x86, but rather archs that may not support numa_fill_memblks() and return NUMA_NO_MEMBLK (-1) per the #ifndef numa_fill_memblks in include/linux/numa.h In those cases, take a second look at phys_to_targe_node() before blindly adding another memblk. Is that the failure signature you reported here? I can wait and see your final patch and how the different archs will handle it. I'm worried that NUMA_NO_MEMBLK is overloaded and we need to diffentiate between archs that don't even look for a node, versus archs that look but don't find a node. --Alison > > So we should be good without your change. > > Thanks, > > -Robert > > > /* No SRAT description. Create a new node. */ > > > > --Alison > > > > > > > > [1] fd49f99c1809 ("ACPI: NUMA: Add a node and memblk for each CFMWS not in SRAT") > > > > > > Fixes: 8f1004679987 ("ACPI/NUMA: Apply SRAT proximity domain to entire CFMWS window") > > > Cc: Derick Marks <derick.w.marks@intel.com> > > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > > > Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> > > > --- > > > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > > index 65e9a6e391c0..ce84ba86e69e 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > > @@ -929,6 +929,8 @@ int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start) > > > } > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memory_add_physaddr_to_nid); > > > > > > +#endif > > > + > > > static int __init cmp_memblk(const void *a, const void *b) > > > { > > > const struct numa_memblk *ma = *(const struct numa_memblk **)a; > > > @@ -1001,5 +1003,3 @@ int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) > > > } > > > return 0; > > > } > > > - > > > -#endif > > > -- > > > 2.39.2 > > >
Hi Alison, On 21.03.24 11:39:17, Alison Schofield wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 05:55:57PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote: > > Alison, > > > > On 20.03.24 10:46:07, Alison Schofield wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 01:00:23PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote: > > > > For configurations that have the kconfig option NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO > > > > disabled, the SRAT lookup done with numa_fill_memblks() fails > > > > returning NUMA_NO_MEMBLK (-1). An existing SRAT memory range cannot be > > > > found for a CFMWS address range. This causes the addition of a > > > > duplicate numa_memblk with a different node id and a subsequent page > > > > fault and kernel crash during boot. > > > > > > > > numa_fill_memblks() is implemented and used in the init section only. > > > > The option NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO is only for the case when NUMA data will > > > > be used outside of init. So fix the SRAT lookup by moving > > > > numa_fill_memblks() out of the NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO block to make it > > > > always available in the init section. > > > > > > > > Note that the issue was initially introduced with [1]. But since > > > > phys_to_target_node() was originally used that returned the valid node > > > > 0, an additional numa_memblk was not added. Though, the node id was > > > > wrong too. > > > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > > > I recall a bit of wrangling w #defines to make ARM64 and LOONGARCH build. > > > I'm seeing an x86 build error today: > > > > > > >> arch/x86/mm/numa.c:957:12: error: redefinition of 'numa_fill_memblks' > > > 957 | int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) > > > > > > include/linux/numa.h:40:26: note: previous definition of 'numa_fill_memblks' with type > > > +'int(u64, u64)' {aka 'int(long long unsigned int, long long unsigned int)'} > > > 40 | static inline int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > In addition to what you suggest, would something like this diff below be > > > a useful safety measure to distinguish num_fill_memblks() success (rc:0) > > > and possible non-existence (rc:-1). I don't think it hurts to take a > > > second look using phys_to_target_node() (totall untested) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c > > > index 070a52e4daa8..0c48fe32ced4 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c > > > @@ -437,9 +437,16 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_cfmws(union acpi_subtable_headers *header, > > > * found for any portion of the window to cover the entire > > > * window. > > > */ > > > - if (!numa_fill_memblks(start, end)) > > > + rc = numa_fill_memblks(start, end); > > > + if (!rc) > > > return 0; > > > > > > + if (rc == NUMA_NO_MEMBLK) { > > > + node = phys_to_target_node(start); > > > + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE) > > > + return 0; > > > + } > > > + > > > > for non-x86 the numa_add_memblk() function looks good in a way that it > > is able to handle presumable overlapping regions. numa_fill_memblks() > > would just fail then and numa_add_memblk() being called. For x86 we > > need numa_fill_memblks() since x86 specific numa_add_memblk() cannot > > handle the overlapping case. > > > > That said, we do not need the 2nd check. It looks to me that it > > actually breaks non-x86 as the whole block may not be registered (if > > it is larger than anything existing). > > > > For x86 the 2nd check may never happen if numa_fill_memblks() is > > always enabled (which is this patch for). > > Hi Robert, (<-- got it right this time ;)) no worries. :-) > > I wasn't thinking of x86, but rather archs that may not support > numa_fill_memblks() and return NUMA_NO_MEMBLK (-1) per the > #ifndef numa_fill_memblks in include/linux/numa.h > > In those cases, take a second look at phys_to_targe_node() before > blindly adding another memblk. Is that the failure signature you > reported here? No, I am seeing this on x86 with NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO disabled. numa_fill_memblks() is not implemented then and returns NUMA_NO_MEMBLK. numa_add_memblk() (the x86 variant) is called for an existing range and it adds a duplicate memblock for the same range but with a different nid, which causes a page fault. For the non-x86 generic variant of numa_add_memblk() it looks like it can handle already existing mem blocks within the range and thus does not need numa_fill_memblks() or the phys_to_target_node() check. Using phys_to_target_node() would be actually a bug since this always returns node 0 no matter if there is already a memblock or not. A mem block for a CFMWS range would never be initialized by calling numa_add_memblk(), no matter if the range does not exist at all or if it is partially (at the end) missing. > I can wait and see your final patch and how the different archs > will handle it. I'm worried that NUMA_NO_MEMBLK is overloaded and > we need to diffentiate between archs that don't even look for a > node, versus archs that look but don't find a node. This only happens to archs with ACPI_NUMA enabled which is arm64 and loongarch. As said, numa_add_memblk() handles overlapping ranges so it is ok to just call it multiple times for the whole or a partional range. See below for the full diff of this patch that I will send with a v3 (need to take care at the other review comments yet before sending it). It just changes sparsemem.h too. -Robert diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h index 1be13b2dfe8b..1aaa447ef24b 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/sparsemem.h @@ -37,9 +37,9 @@ extern int phys_to_target_node(phys_addr_t start); #define phys_to_target_node phys_to_target_node extern int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start); #define memory_add_physaddr_to_nid memory_add_physaddr_to_nid +#endif extern int numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end); #define numa_fill_memblks numa_fill_memblks -#endif #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */ #endif /* _ASM_X86_SPARSEMEM_H */ diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c index 65e9a6e391c0..ce84ba86e69e 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c @@ -929,6 +929,8 @@ int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memory_add_physaddr_to_nid); +#endif + static int __init cmp_memblk(const void *a, const void *b) { const struct numa_memblk *ma = *(const struct numa_memblk **)a; @@ -1001,5 +1003,3 @@ int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) } return 0; } - -#endif
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c index 65e9a6e391c0..ce84ba86e69e 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c @@ -929,6 +929,8 @@ int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memory_add_physaddr_to_nid); +#endif + static int __init cmp_memblk(const void *a, const void *b) { const struct numa_memblk *ma = *(const struct numa_memblk **)a; @@ -1001,5 +1003,3 @@ int __init numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end) } return 0; } - -#endif
For configurations that have the kconfig option NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO disabled, the SRAT lookup done with numa_fill_memblks() fails returning NUMA_NO_MEMBLK (-1). An existing SRAT memory range cannot be found for a CFMWS address range. This causes the addition of a duplicate numa_memblk with a different node id and a subsequent page fault and kernel crash during boot. numa_fill_memblks() is implemented and used in the init section only. The option NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO is only for the case when NUMA data will be used outside of init. So fix the SRAT lookup by moving numa_fill_memblks() out of the NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO block to make it always available in the init section. Note that the issue was initially introduced with [1]. But since phys_to_target_node() was originally used that returned the valid node 0, an additional numa_memblk was not added. Though, the node id was wrong too. [1] fd49f99c1809 ("ACPI: NUMA: Add a node and memblk for each CFMWS not in SRAT") Fixes: 8f1004679987 ("ACPI/NUMA: Apply SRAT proximity domain to entire CFMWS window") Cc: Derick Marks <derick.w.marks@intel.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> --- arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)