From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@au1.ibm.com>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Robert Jennings <rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bootmem/sparsemem: remove limit constraint in alloc_bootmem_section
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:28:30 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120229152830.22fc72a2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120229181233.GF5136@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:12:33 -0800
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> While testing AMS (Active Memory Sharing) / CMO (Cooperative Memory
> Overcommit) on powerpc, we tripped the following:
>
> kernel BUG at mm/bootmem.c:483!
>
> ...
>
> This is
>
> BUG_ON(limit && goal + size > limit);
>
> and after some debugging, it seems that
>
> goal = 0x7ffff000000
> limit = 0x80000000000
>
> and sparse_early_usemaps_alloc_node ->
> sparse_early_usemaps_alloc_pgdat_section calls
>
> return alloc_bootmem_section(usemap_size() * count, section_nr);
>
> This is on a system with 8TB available via the AMS pool, and as a quirk
> of AMS in firmware, all of that memory shows up in node 0. So, we end up
> with an allocation that will fail the goal/limit constraints. In theory,
> we could "fall-back" to alloc_bootmem_node() in
> sparse_early_usemaps_alloc_node(), but since we actually have HOTREMOVE
> defined, we'll BUG_ON() instead. A simple solution appears to be to
> unconditionally remove the limit condition in alloc_bootmem_section,
> meaning allocations are allowed to cross section boundaries (necessary
> for systems of this size).
>
> Johannes Weiner pointed out that if alloc_bootmem_section() no longer
> guarantees section-locality, we need check_usemap_section_nr() to print
> possible cross-dependencies between node descriptors and the usemaps
> allocated through it. That makes the two loops in
> sparse_early_usemaps_alloc_node() identical, so re-factor the code a
> bit.
The patch is a bit scary now, so I think we should merge it into
3.4-rc1 and then backport it into 3.3.1 if nothing blows up.
Do you think it should be backported into 3.3.x? Earlier kernels?
Also, this?
--- a/mm/bootmem.c~bootmem-sparsemem-remove-limit-constraint-in-alloc_bootmem_section-fix
+++ a/mm/bootmem.c
@@ -766,14 +766,13 @@ void * __init alloc_bootmem_section(unsi
unsigned long section_nr)
{
bootmem_data_t *bdata;
- unsigned long pfn, goal, limit;
+ unsigned long pfn, goal;
pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(section_nr);
goal = pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
- limit = 0;
bdata = &bootmem_node_data[early_pfn_to_nid(pfn)];
- return alloc_bootmem_core(bdata, size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, goal, limit);
+ return alloc_bootmem_core(bdata, size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, goal, 0);
}
#endif
_
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@au1.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Robert Jennings <rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bootmem/sparsemem: remove limit constraint in alloc_bootmem_section
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:28:30 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120229152830.22fc72a2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120229181233.GF5136@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:12:33 -0800
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> While testing AMS (Active Memory Sharing) / CMO (Cooperative Memory
> Overcommit) on powerpc, we tripped the following:
>
> kernel BUG at mm/bootmem.c:483!
>
> ...
>
> This is
>
> BUG_ON(limit && goal + size > limit);
>
> and after some debugging, it seems that
>
> goal = 0x7ffff000000
> limit = 0x80000000000
>
> and sparse_early_usemaps_alloc_node ->
> sparse_early_usemaps_alloc_pgdat_section calls
>
> return alloc_bootmem_section(usemap_size() * count, section_nr);
>
> This is on a system with 8TB available via the AMS pool, and as a quirk
> of AMS in firmware, all of that memory shows up in node 0. So, we end up
> with an allocation that will fail the goal/limit constraints. In theory,
> we could "fall-back" to alloc_bootmem_node() in
> sparse_early_usemaps_alloc_node(), but since we actually have HOTREMOVE
> defined, we'll BUG_ON() instead. A simple solution appears to be to
> unconditionally remove the limit condition in alloc_bootmem_section,
> meaning allocations are allowed to cross section boundaries (necessary
> for systems of this size).
>
> Johannes Weiner pointed out that if alloc_bootmem_section() no longer
> guarantees section-locality, we need check_usemap_section_nr() to print
> possible cross-dependencies between node descriptors and the usemaps
> allocated through it. That makes the two loops in
> sparse_early_usemaps_alloc_node() identical, so re-factor the code a
> bit.
The patch is a bit scary now, so I think we should merge it into
3.4-rc1 and then backport it into 3.3.1 if nothing blows up.
Do you think it should be backported into 3.3.x? Earlier kernels?
Also, this?
--- a/mm/bootmem.c~bootmem-sparsemem-remove-limit-constraint-in-alloc_bootmem_section-fix
+++ a/mm/bootmem.c
@@ -766,14 +766,13 @@ void * __init alloc_bootmem_section(unsi
unsigned long section_nr)
{
bootmem_data_t *bdata;
- unsigned long pfn, goal, limit;
+ unsigned long pfn, goal;
pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(section_nr);
goal = pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
- limit = 0;
bdata = &bootmem_node_data[early_pfn_to_nid(pfn)];
- return alloc_bootmem_core(bdata, size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, goal, limit);
+ return alloc_bootmem_core(bdata, size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, goal, 0);
}
#endif
_
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-29 23:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-24 19:33 [PATCH] sparsemem/bootmem: catch greater than section size allocations Nishanth Aravamudan
2012-02-24 19:33 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2012-02-28 13:53 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-02-28 13:53 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-02-28 20:11 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2012-02-28 20:11 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2012-02-29 9:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-02-29 9:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-02-28 15:47 ` Mel Gorman
2012-02-28 15:47 ` Mel Gorman
2012-02-29 18:12 ` [PATCH v2] bootmem/sparsemem: remove limit constraint in alloc_bootmem_section Nishanth Aravamudan
2012-02-29 18:12 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2012-02-29 18:45 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-02-29 18:45 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-02-29 23:28 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2012-02-29 23:28 ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-01 0:03 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2012-03-01 0:03 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2012-03-01 23:12 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2012-03-01 23:12 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2012-03-01 11:42 ` Mel Gorman
2012-03-01 11:42 ` Mel Gorman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120229152830.22fc72a2.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anton@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=haveblue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.