* [PATCH] sparsemem interaction with memory add bug fixes
@ 2006-04-12 2:33 Mike Kravetz
2006-04-12 9:32 ` [Lhms-devel] " jschopp
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Mike Kravetz @ 2006-04-12 2:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Arnd Bergmann, Joel H Schopp, Dave Hansen, Andy Whitcroft,
lhms-devel, linux-kernel
This patch fixes two bugs with the way sparsemem interacts with memory
add. They are:
- memory leak if memmap for section already exists
- calling alloc_bootmem_node() after boot
These bugs were discovered and a first cut at the fixes were provided by
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> and Joel Schopp <jschopp@us.ibm.com>.
Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <kravetz@us.ibm.com>
diff -Naupr linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2/mm/sparse.c linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2.work/mm/sparse.c
--- linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2/mm/sparse.c 2006-04-03 03:22:10.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2.work/mm/sparse.c 2006-04-11 23:32:10.000000000 +0000
@@ -32,7 +32,10 @@ static struct mem_section *sparse_index_
unsigned long array_size = SECTIONS_PER_ROOT *
sizeof(struct mem_section);
- section = alloc_bootmem_node(NODE_DATA(nid), array_size);
+ if (system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING)
+ section = kmalloc_node(array_size, GFP_KERNEL, nid);
+ else
+ section = alloc_bootmem_node(NODE_DATA(nid), array_size);
if (section)
memset(section, 0, array_size);
@@ -281,9 +284,9 @@ int sparse_add_one_section(struct zone *
ret = sparse_init_one_section(ms, section_nr, memmap);
+out:
if (ret <= 0)
__kfree_section_memmap(memmap, nr_pages);
-out:
pgdat_resize_unlock(pgdat, &flags);
return ret;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH] sparsemem interaction with memory add bug fixes
2006-04-12 2:33 [PATCH] sparsemem interaction with memory add bug fixes Mike Kravetz
@ 2006-04-12 9:32 ` jschopp
2006-04-12 13:22 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-04-12 14:46 ` Dave Hansen
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jschopp @ 2006-04-12 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Kravetz
Cc: Andrew Morton, Arnd Bergmann, Joel H Schopp, Dave Hansen,
Andy Whitcroft, lhms-devel, linux-kernel
Mike Kravetz wrote:
> This patch fixes two bugs with the way sparsemem interacts with memory
> add. They are:
> - memory leak if memmap for section already exists
> - calling alloc_bootmem_node() after boot
> These bugs were discovered and a first cut at the fixes were provided by
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> and Joel Schopp <jschopp@us.ibm.com>.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <kravetz@us.ibm.com>
>
These fix memory adding spu addresses on cell, among other things.
Signed-off-by: Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sparsemem interaction with memory add bug fixes
2006-04-12 2:33 [PATCH] sparsemem interaction with memory add bug fixes Mike Kravetz
2006-04-12 9:32 ` [Lhms-devel] " jschopp
@ 2006-04-12 13:22 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-04-12 13:43 ` jschopp
2006-04-12 14:46 ` Dave Hansen
2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Andy Whitcroft @ 2006-04-12 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Kravetz
Cc: Andrew Morton, Arnd Bergmann, Joel H Schopp, Dave Hansen,
lhms-devel, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1602 bytes --]
Mike Kravetz wrote:
> This patch fixes two bugs with the way sparsemem interacts with memory
> add. They are:
> - memory leak if memmap for section already exists
> - calling alloc_bootmem_node() after boot
> These bugs were discovered and a first cut at the fixes were provided by
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> and Joel Schopp <jschopp@us.ibm.com>.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <kravetz@us.ibm.com>
>
> diff -Naupr linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2/mm/sparse.c linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2.work/mm/sparse.c
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2/mm/sparse.c 2006-04-03 03:22:10.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2.work/mm/sparse.c 2006-04-11 23:32:10.000000000 +0000
> @@ -32,7 +32,10 @@ static struct mem_section *sparse_index_
> unsigned long array_size = SECTIONS_PER_ROOT *
> sizeof(struct mem_section);
>
> - section = alloc_bootmem_node(NODE_DATA(nid), array_size);
> + if (system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING)
> + section = kmalloc_node(array_size, GFP_KERNEL, nid);
> + else
> + section = alloc_bootmem_node(NODE_DATA(nid), array_size);
>
> if (section)
> memset(section, 0, array_size);
> @@ -281,9 +284,9 @@ int sparse_add_one_section(struct zone *
>
> ret = sparse_init_one_section(ms, section_nr, memmap);
>
> +out:
> if (ret <= 0)
> __kfree_section_memmap(memmap, nr_pages);
> -out:
> pgdat_resize_unlock(pgdat, &flags);
> return ret;
> }
First change looks sane. For the second it makes it obvious that we are
freeing the alloc'd section within the pgdat resize lock. Doesn't seem
to make any sense to do that to me? Perhaps it should be more like the
attached.
-apw
[-- Attachment #2: fix-leak-in-sparse_add_one_section --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 479 bytes --]
sparse.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff -upN reference/mm/sparse.c current/mm/sparse.c
--- reference/mm/sparse.c
+++ current/mm/sparse.c
@@ -281,9 +281,9 @@ int sparse_add_one_section(struct zone *
ret = sparse_init_one_section(ms, section_nr, memmap);
- if (ret <= 0)
- __kfree_section_memmap(memmap, nr_pages);
out:
pgdat_resize_unlock(pgdat, &flags);
+ if (ret <= 0)
+ __kfree_section_memmap(memmap, nr_pages);
return ret;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sparsemem interaction with memory add bug fixes
2006-04-12 13:22 ` Andy Whitcroft
@ 2006-04-12 13:43 ` jschopp
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jschopp @ 2006-04-12 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Whitcroft
Cc: Mike Kravetz, Andrew Morton, Arnd Bergmann, Joel H Schopp,
haveblue, lhms-devel, linux-kernel
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> This patch fixes two bugs with the way sparsemem interacts with memory
>> add. They are:
>> - memory leak if memmap for section already exists
>> - calling alloc_bootmem_node() after boot
>> These bugs were discovered and a first cut at the fixes were provided by
>> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> and Joel Schopp <jschopp@us.ibm.com>.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <kravetz@us.ibm.com>
>>
>> diff -Naupr linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2/mm/sparse.c linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2.work/mm/sparse.c
>> --- linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2/mm/sparse.c 2006-04-03 03:22:10.000000000 +0000
>> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2.work/mm/sparse.c 2006-04-11 23:32:10.000000000 +0000
>> @@ -32,7 +32,10 @@ static struct mem_section *sparse_index_
>> unsigned long array_size = SECTIONS_PER_ROOT *
>> sizeof(struct mem_section);
>>
>> - section = alloc_bootmem_node(NODE_DATA(nid), array_size);
>> + if (system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING)
>> + section = kmalloc_node(array_size, GFP_KERNEL, nid);
>> + else
>> + section = alloc_bootmem_node(NODE_DATA(nid), array_size);
>>
>> if (section)
>> memset(section, 0, array_size);
>> @@ -281,9 +284,9 @@ int sparse_add_one_section(struct zone *
>>
>> ret = sparse_init_one_section(ms, section_nr, memmap);
>>
>> +out:
>> if (ret <= 0)
>> __kfree_section_memmap(memmap, nr_pages);
>> -out:
>> pgdat_resize_unlock(pgdat, &flags);
>> return ret;
>> }
>
> First change looks sane. For the second it makes it obvious that we are
> freeing the alloc'd section within the pgdat resize lock. Doesn't seem
> to make any sense to do that to me? Perhaps it should be more like the
> attached.
>
> -apw
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> sparse.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> diff -upN reference/mm/sparse.c current/mm/sparse.c
> --- reference/mm/sparse.c
> +++ current/mm/sparse.c
> @@ -281,9 +281,9 @@ int sparse_add_one_section(struct zone *
>
> ret = sparse_init_one_section(ms, section_nr, memmap);
>
> - if (ret <= 0)
> - __kfree_section_memmap(memmap, nr_pages);
> out:
> pgdat_resize_unlock(pgdat, &flags);
> + if (ret <= 0)
> + __kfree_section_memmap(memmap, nr_pages);
> return ret;
> }
Whatever, I don't really care. It doesn't matter functionally if we free under the
pgdat_resize lock or not. This looks fine, as does the original patch. If resizing
pgdats was a hot path we might prefer this way outside the lock.
-Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sparsemem interaction with memory add bug fixes
2006-04-12 2:33 [PATCH] sparsemem interaction with memory add bug fixes Mike Kravetz
2006-04-12 9:32 ` [Lhms-devel] " jschopp
2006-04-12 13:22 ` Andy Whitcroft
@ 2006-04-12 14:46 ` Dave Hansen
2006-04-12 16:05 ` [Lhms-devel] " Mike Kravetz
2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Dave Hansen @ 2006-04-12 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Kravetz
Cc: Andrew Morton, Arnd Bergmann, Joel H Schopp, Andy Whitcroft,
lhms-devel, linux-kernel
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 19:33 -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> This patch fixes two bugs with the way sparsemem interacts with memory
> add. They are:
> - memory leak if memmap for section already exists
> - calling alloc_bootmem_node() after boot
> These bugs were discovered and a first cut at the fixes were provided by
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> and Joel Schopp <jschopp@us.ibm.com>.
At first glance, these seem fine to me.
Just out of curiosity. Can these issues be revealed with current code,
or do they only show up with the cell changes?
-- Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [Lhms-devel] Re: [PATCH] sparsemem interaction with memory add bug fixes
2006-04-12 14:46 ` Dave Hansen
@ 2006-04-12 16:05 ` Mike Kravetz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Mike Kravetz @ 2006-04-12 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Hansen
Cc: Mike Kravetz, Andrew Morton, Arnd Bergmann, Joel H Schopp,
Andy Whitcroft, lhms-devel, linux-kernel
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 07:46:04AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Just out of curiosity. Can these issues be revealed with current code,
> or do they only show up with the cell changes?
Yes, you could hit either of these doing memory adds with the current
code. The follow up issue of adding sub-section amounts of memory is
cell specific.
--
Mike
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] sparsemem interaction with memory add bug fixes
@ 2006-04-12 17:19 Mike Kravetz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Mike Kravetz @ 2006-04-12 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Arnd Bergmann, Joel H Schopp, Dave Hansen, Andy Whitcroft,
lhms-devel, linux-kernel
Updated version of patch with Andy's suggestion.
Fix two bugs with the way sparsemem interacts with memory add:
- memory leak if memmap for section already exists
- calling alloc_bootmem_node() after boot
Signed-off-by: Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <kravetz@us.ibm.com>
diff -Naupr linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2/mm/sparse.c linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2.work/mm/sparse.c
--- linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2/mm/sparse.c 2006-04-03 03:22:10.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm2.work/mm/sparse.c 2006-04-12 17:21:11.000000000 +0000
@@ -32,7 +32,10 @@ static struct mem_section *sparse_index_
unsigned long array_size = SECTIONS_PER_ROOT *
sizeof(struct mem_section);
- section = alloc_bootmem_node(NODE_DATA(nid), array_size);
+ if (system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING)
+ section = kmalloc_node(array_size, GFP_KERNEL, nid);
+ else
+ section = alloc_bootmem_node(NODE_DATA(nid), array_size);
if (section)
memset(section, 0, array_size);
@@ -281,9 +284,9 @@ int sparse_add_one_section(struct zone *
ret = sparse_init_one_section(ms, section_nr, memmap);
- if (ret <= 0)
- __kfree_section_memmap(memmap, nr_pages);
out:
pgdat_resize_unlock(pgdat, &flags);
+ if (ret <= 0)
+ __kfree_section_memmap(memmap, nr_pages);
return ret;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-04-12 17:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-04-12 2:33 [PATCH] sparsemem interaction with memory add bug fixes Mike Kravetz
2006-04-12 9:32 ` [Lhms-devel] " jschopp
2006-04-12 13:22 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-04-12 13:43 ` jschopp
2006-04-12 14:46 ` Dave Hansen
2006-04-12 16:05 ` [Lhms-devel] " Mike Kravetz
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-04-12 17:19 Mike Kravetz
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox