Re: [PATCH v2 10/21] memblock: refactor internal allocation functions

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 19:45:17 +1100 Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 08:39:20PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:  
> >> Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:  
> >> > Currently, memblock has several internal functions with overlapping
> >> > functionality. They all call memblock_find_in_range_node() to find free
> >> > memory and then reserve the allocated range and mark it with kmemleak.
> >> > However, there is difference in the allocation constraints and in fallback
> >> > strategies.  
> ...
> >> 
> >> This is causing problems on some of my machines.  
> ...
> >> 
> >> On some of my other systems it does that, and then panics because it
> >> can't allocate anything at all:
> >> 
> >> [    0.000000] numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0x7ffcaee80-0x7ffcb3fff]
> >> [    0.000000] numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0x7ffc99d00-0x7ffc9ee7f]
> >> [    0.000000] numa:     NODE_DATA(1) on node 0
> >> [    0.000000] Kernel panic - not syncing: Cannot allocate 20864 bytes for node 16 data
> >> [    0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.0.0-rc4-gccN-next-20190201-gdc4c899 #1
> >> [    0.000000] Call Trace:
> >> [    0.000000] [c0000000011cfca0] [c000000000c11044] dump_stack+0xe8/0x164 (unreliable)
> >> [    0.000000] [c0000000011cfcf0] [c0000000000fdd6c] panic+0x17c/0x3e0
> >> [    0.000000] [c0000000011cfd90] [c000000000f61bc8] initmem_init+0x128/0x260
> >> [    0.000000] [c0000000011cfe60] [c000000000f57940] setup_arch+0x398/0x418
> >> [    0.000000] [c0000000011cfee0] [c000000000f50a94] start_kernel+0xa0/0x684
> >> [    0.000000] [c0000000011cff90] [c00000000000af70] start_here_common+0x1c/0x52c
> >> [    0.000000] Rebooting in 180 seconds..
> >> 
> >> 
> >> So there's something going wrong there, I haven't had time to dig into
> >> it though (Sunday night here).  
> >
> > Yeah, I've misplaced 'nid' and 'MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE' in
> > memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid() :(
> >
> > Can you please check if the below patch fixes the issue on your systems?  
> 
> Yes it does, thanks.
> 
> Tested-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> cheers
> 
> 
> > From 5875b7440e985ce551e6da3cb28aa8e9af697e10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 13:35:42 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] memblock: fix parameter order in
> >  memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid()
> >
> > The refactoring of internal memblock allocation functions used wrong order
> > of parameters in memblock_alloc_range_nid() call from
> > memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid().
> > Fix it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  mm/memblock.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> > index e047933..0151a5b 100644
> > --- a/mm/memblock.c
> > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> > @@ -1402,8 +1402,8 @@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_phys_alloc_range(phys_addr_t size,
> >  
> >  phys_addr_t __init memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
> >  {
> > -	return memblock_alloc_range_nid(size, align, 0, nid,
> > -					MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE);
> > +	return memblock_alloc_range_nid(size, align, 0,
> > +					MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, nid);
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > -- 
> > 2.7.4

I have applied that patch to the akpm tree in linux-next from today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachment: pgpBo8hzHm2Db.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature