Re: [5.6.0-rc2-next-20200218/powerpc] Boot failure on POWER9

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>]

On Wed 26-02-20 12:31:56, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > On Wed 26-02-20 18:44:13, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Besides that kmalloc_node shouldn't really have an implicit GFP_THISNODE
> > > > semantic right? At least I do not see anything like that documented
> > > > anywhere.
> > > 
> > > Kmalloc_node does not support memory policies etc. Only kmalloc does.
> > > kmalloc_node is mostly used by subsystems that have determined the active
> > > nodes and want a targeted allocation on those nodes.
> >  
> > I am sorry but I have hard time to follow your responses here. They open
> > more questions than they answer for me. The primary point here is that
> > kmalloc_node on a memory less node blows up and panics the kernel. I
> > strongly believe this is a bug. We cannot really make all callers of
> > kmalloc_node and co. to be hotplug aware.
> > 
> > Another question is the semantic of kmalloc_node when the node cannot
> > satisfy the request. I have always thought that the allocation would
> > simply fall back to any other node unless __GFP_THISNODE is explicitly
> > specified.
> > 
> 
> Am I right in classifying this as a trade-off between an 
> unlikely(!node_state(nid, N_MEMORY)) directly in kmalloc_node() vs fixing 
> up a caller passing a memoryless nid?

The thing is that any check for node online/populated followed by the
allocation is inherently racy without using memory hotplug locking
around that and I am pretty sure this is a step into a wrong direction.

Is there any problem to initialize slub internal data structures for all
possible nodes? This wouldn't require any checks into hot paths.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs