| Message ID | cover.1705085543.git.alison.schofield@intel.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | x86/numa: Fix NUMA node overlap & init failure | expand |
alison.schofield@ wrote: > From: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com> > > A previously posted single patch [1] is obsoleted by this set. The > feedback from that review is applied and noted in Patch 1. > > While trying to attribute a CXL user report to the bad selection of > overlapping memblks, as fixed in Patch 1, I found that two issues, > in sequence, lead to NUMA Node overlap and NUMA init failure. > > An overlapping NUMA node occurs when a non-overlapping memblk is > selected to fill (Patch 1), and then a bad sort (Patch 2) puts the > memblk with the greater address ahead of the lesser address memblk > in the fill list. > > It looked like this: > > Existing memblks: > node 6 [mem 0xb90000000-0xc90000000] > node 7 [mem 0xc90000000-0xd90000000] > > Call to numa_fill_memblks(b90000000,c90000000) > > Error (Patch 1): collects 2 blks > blk[0] node 6 [0xb90000000-0xc90000000] > blk[1] node 7 [0xc90000000-0xd90000000] > > Error (Patch 2): bad sort of the 2 blks > blk[0] node 7 [0xc90000000-0xd90000000] > blk[1] node 6 [0xb90000000-0xc90000000] > > Seals the deal with a bad fill: > blk[0] node 7 [0xb90000000-0xd90000000] > > Boom: numa_clean_meminfo() discovers the overlap in Nodes 6 & 7 > and NUMA init fails. > > Since the scenario above is not solely attributed to either patch, > the story is explicity shared here. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/20240102213206.1493733-1-alison.schofield@intel.com/ > > Alison Schofield (2): > x86/numa: Fix the address overlap check in numa_fill_memblks() > x86/numa: Fix the sort compare func used in numa_fill_memblks() > > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 21 ++++++++------------- > include/linux/memblock.h | 2 ++ > mm/memblock.c | 5 +++-- > 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) For both fixes: Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> ...if they get picked up into the x86 tree. Otherwise I'll circle back and take them through cxl.git with an x86 ack since this is all cxl-related fixups to numa_fill_memblks().
Dan Williams wrote: > alison.schofield@ wrote: > > From: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com> > > > > A previously posted single patch [1] is obsoleted by this set. The > > feedback from that review is applied and noted in Patch 1. > > > > While trying to attribute a CXL user report to the bad selection of > > overlapping memblks, as fixed in Patch 1, I found that two issues, > > in sequence, lead to NUMA Node overlap and NUMA init failure. > > > > An overlapping NUMA node occurs when a non-overlapping memblk is > > selected to fill (Patch 1), and then a bad sort (Patch 2) puts the > > memblk with the greater address ahead of the lesser address memblk > > in the fill list. > > > > It looked like this: > > > > Existing memblks: > > node 6 [mem 0xb90000000-0xc90000000] > > node 7 [mem 0xc90000000-0xd90000000] > > > > Call to numa_fill_memblks(b90000000,c90000000) > > > > Error (Patch 1): collects 2 blks > > blk[0] node 6 [0xb90000000-0xc90000000] > > blk[1] node 7 [0xc90000000-0xd90000000] > > > > Error (Patch 2): bad sort of the 2 blks > > blk[0] node 7 [0xc90000000-0xd90000000] > > blk[1] node 6 [0xb90000000-0xc90000000] > > > > Seals the deal with a bad fill: > > blk[0] node 7 [0xb90000000-0xd90000000] > > > > Boom: numa_clean_meminfo() discovers the overlap in Nodes 6 & 7 > > and NUMA init fails. > > > > Since the scenario above is not solely attributed to either patch, > > the story is explicity shared here. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/20240102213206.1493733-1-alison.schofield@intel.com/ > > > > Alison Schofield (2): > > x86/numa: Fix the address overlap check in numa_fill_memblks() > > x86/numa: Fix the sort compare func used in numa_fill_memblks() > > > > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 21 ++++++++------------- > > include/linux/memblock.h | 2 ++ > > mm/memblock.c | 5 +++-- > > 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > For both fixes: > > Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > > ...if they get picked up into the x86 tree. > > Otherwise I'll circle back and take them through cxl.git with an x86 ack > since this is all cxl-related fixups to numa_fill_memblks(). Circling back to check on these now that Mike has acked the memblock usage. Dave or Peter, please pull them into tip/x86/mm, or I can circle back and grab them next week.
On 1/25/24 13:49, Dan Williams wrote: > Circling back to check on these now that Mike has acked the memblock usage. > Dave or Peter, please pull them into tip/x86/mm, or I can circle back and grab > them next week. Hi Dan, Feel free to carry these: Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
From: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com> A previously posted single patch [1] is obsoleted by this set. The feedback from that review is applied and noted in Patch 1. While trying to attribute a CXL user report to the bad selection of overlapping memblks, as fixed in Patch 1, I found that two issues, in sequence, lead to NUMA Node overlap and NUMA init failure. An overlapping NUMA node occurs when a non-overlapping memblk is selected to fill (Patch 1), and then a bad sort (Patch 2) puts the memblk with the greater address ahead of the lesser address memblk in the fill list. It looked like this: Existing memblks: node 6 [mem 0xb90000000-0xc90000000] node 7 [mem 0xc90000000-0xd90000000] Call to numa_fill_memblks(b90000000,c90000000) Error (Patch 1): collects 2 blks blk[0] node 6 [0xb90000000-0xc90000000] blk[1] node 7 [0xc90000000-0xd90000000] Error (Patch 2): bad sort of the 2 blks blk[0] node 7 [0xc90000000-0xd90000000] blk[1] node 6 [0xb90000000-0xc90000000] Seals the deal with a bad fill: blk[0] node 7 [0xb90000000-0xd90000000] Boom: numa_clean_meminfo() discovers the overlap in Nodes 6 & 7 and NUMA init fails. Since the scenario above is not solely attributed to either patch, the story is explicity shared here. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/20240102213206.1493733-1-alison.schofield@intel.com/ Alison Schofield (2): x86/numa: Fix the address overlap check in numa_fill_memblks() x86/numa: Fix the sort compare func used in numa_fill_memblks() arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 21 ++++++++------------- include/linux/memblock.h | 2 ++ mm/memblock.c | 5 +++-- 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) base-commit: bd009225e8cbb6e18ad3389328fa640e4887dd9e