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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 070B7C4BA24 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 19:03:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E2822072D for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 19:03:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3E2822072D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48SQFN1H5FzDqpk for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 06:03:52 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=209.85.128.65; helo=mail-wm1-f65.google.com; envelope-from=mstsxfx@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Received: from mail-wm1-f65.google.com (mail-wm1-f65.google.com [209.85.128.65]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48SQCW1NlNzDqP2 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 06:02:14 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-wm1-f65.google.com with SMTP id p17so460661wma.1 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:02:14 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=wma8//MuEJ5lDMCNv7woFeX6q3iIbYqlguJq6Z39y9g=; b=clUwar4Da9E+wMKc+HjVjwzw39X/kaLkyA9fZUGix8DwcItQpOhgGlGySIqtCtpyk4 pazF2pRYT50hDHB6P9sNagFScAqPR0f9OFyOJJGbs/QWaxTM4SsKk+6ziLmP1yY2AmqT 6dadfPa+/hAu5+hsBVbDyF/wbdywktiEDj1kZPmmeQUxwZ3k7pkdfQLq4VTjPYA74O4D OqXlPABHEuiCGq0nOrQJX4z20ailqeq7ENxJg4Vy48sl7kVeJL6mSTM309tvkzSfaUvX anlESLW6DV01cY8TJDZawWOAmOPzq1GF9LDbLdbB/cjZPdEbUUiv0SmiplZgfkjmkRhO l45w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX2MbvMcc/H78Hhw3jGI8Z4onW3hMIAnI3JbX3UU31eq+OFBw4p eQmV7hfr6arT2f7PFK74SgY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy1WHHW7PhNyQZfNF9Uby7MTmMW2VacmOxQznSOX8L9F7K9RTZt3mm2UBxnU4ncOA9Q4kOakw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a706:: with SMTP id q6mr288531wme.23.1582743731757; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:02:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-190-100.eurotel.cz. [37.188.190.100]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t133sm4060446wmf.31.2020.02.26.11.01.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:01:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:01:47 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Christopher Lameter Subject: Re: [5.6.0-rc2-next-20200218/powerpc] Boot failure on POWER9 Message-ID: <20200226190147.GR3771@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200218115525.GD4151@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200218142620.GF4151@dhcp22.suse.cz> <35EE65CF-40E3-4870-AEBC-D326977176DA@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20200218152441.GH4151@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200224085812.GB22443@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200226184152.GQ3771@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Sachin Sant , Pekka Enberg , Kirill Tkhai , Linux-Next Mailing List , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" 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. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs