Re: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/numa: Set numa_node for all possible cpus

[Srikar Dronamraju]

* Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> [2020-03-12 14:51:38]:

> > * Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> [2020-03-12 10:30:50]:
> > 
> >> On 3/12/20 9:23 AM, Sachin Sant wrote:
> >> >> On 12-Mar-2020, at 10:57 AM, Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> * Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> [2020-03-11 12:57:35]:
> >> >>> On Wed 11-03-20 16:32:35, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >> >>>> To ensure a cpuless, memoryless dummy node is not online, powerpc need
> >> >>>> to make sure all possible but not present cpu_to_node are set to a
> >> >>>> proper node.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> Just curious, is this somehow related to
> >> >>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200227182650.GG3771@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx?
> >> >>> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> The issue I am trying to fix is a known issue in Powerpc since many years.
> >> >> So this surely not a problem after a75056fc1e7c (mm/memcontrol.c: allocate
> >> >> shrinker_map on appropriate NUMA node"). 
> >> >> 
> > 
> > While I am not an expert in the slub area, I looked at the patch
> > a75056fc1e7c and had some thoughts on why this could be causing this issue.
> > 
> > On the system where the crash happens, the possible number of nodes is much
> > greater than the number of onlined nodes. The pdgat or the NODE_DATA is only
> > available for onlined nodes.
> > 
> > With a75056fc1e7c memcg_alloc_shrinker_maps, we end up calling kzalloc_node
> > for all possible nodes and in ___slab_alloc we end up looking at the
> > node_present_pages which is NODE_DATA(nid)->node_present_pages.
> > i.e for a node whose pdgat struct is not allocated, we are trying to
> > dereference.
> 
> From what we saw, the pgdat does exist, the problem is that slab's per-node data
> doesn't exist for a node that doesn't have present pages, as it would be a waste
> of memory.

Just to be clear
Before my 3 patches to fix dummy node:
srikar@ltc-zzci-2 /sys/devices/system/node $ cat $PWD/possible
0-31
srikar@ltc-zzci-2 /sys/devices/system/node $ cat $PWD/online
0-1

> 
> Uh actually you are probably right, the NODE_DATA doesn't exist anymore? In
> Sachin's first report [1] we have
> 
> [    0.000000] numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0x8bfedc900-0x8bfee3fff]
> [    0.000000] numa:     NODE_DATA(0) on node 1
> [    0.000000] numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0x8bfed5200-0x8bfedc8ff]
> 

So even if pgdat would exist for nodes 0 and 1, there is no pgdat for the
rest 30 nodes.

> But in this thread, with your patches Sachin reports:

and with my patches
srikar@ltc-zzci-2 /sys/devices/system/node $ cat $PWD/possible
0-31
srikar@ltc-zzci-2 /sys/devices/system/node $ cat $PWD/online
1

> 
> [    0.000000] numa:   NODE_DATA [mem 0x8bfedc900-0x8bfee3fff]
> 

so we only see one pgdat.

> So I assume it's just node 1. In that case, node_present_pages is really dangerous.
> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/3381CD91-AB3D-4773-BA04-E7A072A63968@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> > Also for a memoryless/cpuless node or possible but not present nodes,
> > node_to_mem_node(node) will still end up as node (atleast on powerpc).
> 
> I think that's the place where this would be best to fix.
> 

Maybe. I thought about it but the current set_numa_mem semantics are apt
for memoryless cpu node and not for possible nodes.  We could have upto 256
possible nodes and only 2 nodes (1,2) with cpu and 1 node (1) with memory.
node_to_mem_node seems to return what is set in set_numa_mem().
set_numa_mem() seems to say set my numa_mem node for the current memoryless
node to the param passed.

But how do we set numa_mem for all the other 253 possible nodes, which
probably will have 0 as default?

Should we introduce another API such that we could update for all possible
nodes?

> > I tried with this hunk below and it works.
> > 
> > But I am not sure if we need to check at other places were
> > node_present_pages is being called.
> 
> I think this seems to defeat the purpose of node_to_mem_node()? Shouldn't it
> return only nodes that are online with present memory?
> CCing Joonsoo who seems to have introduced this in ad2c8144418c ("topology: add
> support for node_to_mem_node() to determine the fallback node")
> 

Agree 

> I think we do need well defined and documented rules around node_to_mem_node(),
> cpu_to_node(), existence of NODE_DATA, various node_states bitmaps etc so
> everyone handles it the same, safe way.
> 

Other option would be to tweak Kirill Tkhai's patch such that we call
kvmalloc_node()/kzalloc_node() if node is online and call kvmalloc/kvzalloc
if the node is offline.

> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index 626cbcbd977f..bddb93bed55e 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -2571,9 +2571,13 @@ static void *___slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags, int node,
> >  	if (unlikely(!node_match(page, node))) {
> >  		int searchnode = node;
> >  
> > -		if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && !node_present_pages(node))
> > -			searchnode = node_to_mem_node(node);
> > -
> > +		if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> > +			if (!node_online(node) || !node_present_pages(node)) {
> > +				searchnode = node_to_mem_node(node);
> > +				if (!node_online(searchnode))
> > +					searchnode = first_online_node;
> > +			}
> > +		}
> >  		if (unlikely(!node_match(page, searchnode))) {
> >  			stat(s, ALLOC_NODE_MISMATCH);
> >  			deactivate_slab(s, page, c->freelist, c);

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju