Re: [PATCH -next v2] mm/hotplug: fix a null-ptr-deref during NUMA boot

[Pingfan Liu]

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 2:20 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [Sorry for a late reply]
>
> On Thu 23-05-19 11:58:45, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:16 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed 22-05-19 15:12:16, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> [...]
> > > > But in fact, we already have for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) to
> > > > cover this purpose.
> > >
> > > I do not really think we want to spread N_MEMORY outside of the core MM.
> > > It is quite confusing IMHO.
> > > .
> > But it has already like this. Just git grep N_MEMORY.
>
> I might be wrong but I suspect a closer review would reveal that the use
> will be inconsistent or dubious so following the existing users is not
> the best approach.
>
> > > > Furthermore, changing the definition of online may
> > > > break something in the scheduler, e.g. in task_numa_migrate(), where
> > > > it calls for_each_online_node.
> > >
> > > Could you be more specific please? Why should numa balancing consider
> > > nodes without any memory?
> > >
> > As my understanding, the destination cpu can be on a memory less node.
> > BTW, there are several functions in the scheduler facing the same
> > scenario, task_numa_migrate() is an example.
>
> Even if the destination node is memoryless then any migration would fail
> because there is no memory. Anyway I still do not see how using online
> node would break anything.
>
Suppose we have nodes A, B,C, where C is memory less but has little
distance to B, comparing with the one from A to B. Then if a task is
running on A, but prefer to run on B due to memory footprint.
task_numa_migrate() allows us to migrate the task to node C. Changing
for_each_online_node will break this.

Regards,
  Pingfan

> > > > By keeping the node owning cpu as online, Michal's patch can avoid
> > > > such corner case and keep things easy. Furthermore, if needed, the
> > > > other patch can use for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) to replace
> > > > for_each_online_node is some space.
> > >
> > > Ideally no code outside of the core MM should care about what kind of
> > > memory does the node really own. The external code should only care
> > > whether the node is online and thus usable or offline and of no
> > > interest.
> >
> > Yes, but maybe it will pay great effort on it.
>
> Even if that is the case it would be preferable because the current
> situation is just not sustainable wrt maintenance cost. It is just too
> simple to break the existing logic as this particular report outlines.
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs