From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8BBC433E9 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:13:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C925F64E87 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:13:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232566AbhBHLNj (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2021 06:13:39 -0500 Received: from wforward2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.31]:51267 "EHLO wforward2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232876AbhBHLHQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2021 06:07:16 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailforward.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A107AB0; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 06:05:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 08 Feb 2021 06:05:51 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=dO/eJ0 KEoun/Te1WH/gU+ImzehDwZS9+KDoWGZS5Jmk=; b=d4P895rmBy+Nfr1zq4zHfv +uoY57abazaYnVIeDtTsednsXZB5N4EpnOiqJiNCzMurPk99sbareAWuhPHYWOdg 2OYvpTlYWHSjomAOsV1u1SM3zLX77x6S4oYn2a3ZzC9rsbnK2mmBRETqxRIlC+Zv M1AgCpMplxT/sDfWShq+bIIE5SnT756zZY0Bn86fn0aDjmXq/NZHKzgnbaBU0Hfd zfp9ze0bQI+vL1Y3Eal0Lkrm9l27Myr5d/vuHHvEnnsv/9W2f5svcWwNoc/smkhS xFUEeeF1LVFgtrHS2jBYGoAEIULlgpqNkfEv192Uc4dOsBsIHXoXdDoAuF04WWmg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrheefgddvvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvhfffkfggtgfgsehtkeertddttd flnecuhfhrohhmpeeoghhrvghgkhhhsehlihhnuhigfhhouhhnuggrthhiohhnrdhorhhg qeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeelleelvdegfeelledtteegudegfffghfduffduudekge efleegieegkeejhfelveenucffohhmrghinhepkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgnecukfhppeek fedrkeeirdejgedrieegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepghhrvghgsehkrhhorghhrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (83-86-74-64.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.74.64]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 75130108005F; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 06:05:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] memblock: do not start bottom-up allocations with kernel_end" failed to apply to 4.14-stable tree To: guro@fb.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, bauerman@linux.ibm.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, mhocko@kernel.org, riel@surriel.com, rppt@linux.ibm.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, vvghjk1234@gmail.com Cc: From: Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 12:05:47 +0100 Message-ID: <1612782347155249@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org The patch below does not apply to the 4.14-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to . thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From 2dcb3964544177c51853a210b6ad400de78ef17d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Roman Gushchin Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 18:32:36 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] memblock: do not start bottom-up allocations with kernel_end With kaslr the kernel image is placed at a random place, so starting the bottom-up allocation with the kernel_end can result in an allocation failure and a warning like this one: hugetlb_cma: reserve 2048 MiB, up to 2048 MiB per node ------------[ cut here ]------------ memblock: bottom-up allocation failed, memory hotremove may be affected WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/memblock.c:332 memblock_find_in_range_node+0x178/0x25a Modules linked in: CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.10.0+ #1169 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.14.0-1.fc33 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:memblock_find_in_range_node+0x178/0x25a Code: e9 6d ff ff ff 48 85 c0 0f 85 da 00 00 00 80 3d 9b 35 df 00 00 75 15 48 c7 c7 c0 75 59 88 c6 05 8b 35 df 00 01 e8 25 8a fa ff <0f> 0b 48 c7 44 24 20 ff ff ff ff 44 89 e6 44 89 ea 48 c7 c1 70 5c RSP: 0000:ffffffff88803d18 EFLAGS: 00010086 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000240000000 RCX: 00000000ffffdfff RDX: 00000000ffffdfff RSI: 00000000ffffffea RDI: 0000000000000046 RBP: 0000000100000000 R08: ffffffff88922788 R09: 0000000000009ffb R10: 00000000ffffe000 R11: 3fffffffffffffff R12: 0000000000000000 R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000080000000 R15: 00000001fb42c000 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffffff88f71000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: ffffa080fb401000 CR3: 00000001fa80a000 CR4: 00000000000406b0 Call Trace: memblock_alloc_range_nid+0x8d/0x11e cma_declare_contiguous_nid+0x2c4/0x38c hugetlb_cma_reserve+0xdc/0x128 flush_tlb_one_kernel+0xc/0x20 native_set_fixmap+0x82/0xd0 flat_get_apic_id+0x5/0x10 register_lapic_address+0x8e/0x97 setup_arch+0x8a5/0xc3f start_kernel+0x66/0x547 load_ucode_bsp+0x4c/0xcd secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb0/0xbb random: get_random_bytes called from __warn+0xab/0x110 with crng_init=0 ---[ end trace f151227d0b39be70 ]--- At the same time, the kernel image is protected with memblock_reserve(), so we can just start searching at PAGE_SIZE. In this case the bottom-up allocation has the same chances to success as a top-down allocation, so there is no reason to fallback in the case of a failure. All together it simplifies the logic. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201217201214.3414100-2-guro@fb.com Fixes: 8fabc623238e ("powerpc: Ensure that swiotlb buffer is allocated from low memory") Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport Cc: Joonsoo Kim Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Rik van Riel Cc: Wonhyuk Yang Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c index 1eaaec1e7687..8d9b5f1e7040 100644 --- a/mm/memblock.c +++ b/mm/memblock.c @@ -275,14 +275,6 @@ __memblock_find_range_top_down(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end, * * Find @size free area aligned to @align in the specified range and node. * - * When allocation direction is bottom-up, the @start should be greater - * than the end of the kernel image. Otherwise, it will be trimmed. The - * reason is that we want the bottom-up allocation just near the kernel - * image so it is highly likely that the allocated memory and the kernel - * will reside in the same node. - * - * If bottom-up allocation failed, will try to allocate memory top-down. - * * Return: * Found address on success, 0 on failure. */ @@ -291,8 +283,6 @@ static phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t end, int nid, enum memblock_flags flags) { - phys_addr_t kernel_end, ret; - /* pump up @end */ if (end == MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE || end == MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_KASAN) @@ -301,40 +291,13 @@ static phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t size, /* avoid allocating the first page */ start = max_t(phys_addr_t, start, PAGE_SIZE); end = max(start, end); - kernel_end = __pa_symbol(_end); - - /* - * try bottom-up allocation only when bottom-up mode - * is set and @end is above the kernel image. - */ - if (memblock_bottom_up() && end > kernel_end) { - phys_addr_t bottom_up_start; - - /* make sure we will allocate above the kernel */ - bottom_up_start = max(start, kernel_end); - /* ok, try bottom-up allocation first */ - ret = __memblock_find_range_bottom_up(bottom_up_start, end, - size, align, nid, flags); - if (ret) - return ret; - - /* - * we always limit bottom-up allocation above the kernel, - * but top-down allocation doesn't have the limit, so - * retrying top-down allocation may succeed when bottom-up - * allocation failed. - * - * bottom-up allocation is expected to be fail very rarely, - * so we use WARN_ONCE() here to see the stack trace if - * fail happens. - */ - WARN_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE), - "memblock: bottom-up allocation failed, memory hotremove may be affected\n"); - } - - return __memblock_find_range_top_down(start, end, size, align, nid, - flags); + if (memblock_bottom_up()) + return __memblock_find_range_bottom_up(start, end, size, align, + nid, flags); + else + return __memblock_find_range_top_down(start, end, size, align, + nid, flags); } /**