[PATCH] mm/sparse: set SECTION_NID_SHIFT to 6
From: Naoya Horiguchi
Date: Mon Jun 28 2021 - 03:06:21 EST
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 02:23:05PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 4:10 PM HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
> <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:05:17AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 27.04.21 10:30, Wang Wensheng wrote:
> > > > The section_mem_map member of struct mem_section stores some flags and
> > > > the address of struct page array of the mem_section.
> > > >
> > > > Additionally the node id of the mem_section is stored during early boot,
> > > > where the struct page array has not been allocated. In other words, the
> > > > higher bits of section_mem_map are used for two purpose, and the node id
> > > > should be clear properly after the early boot.
> > > >
> > > > Currently the node id field is overlapped with the flag field and cannot
> > > > be clear properly. That overlapped bits would then be treated as
> > > > mem_section flags and may lead to unexpected side effects.
> > > >
> > > > Define SECTION_NID_SHIFT using order_base_2 to ensure that the node id
> > > > field always locates after flags field. That's why the overlap occurs -
> > > > forgetting to increase SECTION_NID_SHIFT when adding new mem_section
> > > > flag.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 326e1b8f83a4 ("mm/sparsemem: introduce a SECTION_IS_EARLY flag")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Wang Wensheng <wangwensheng4@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/mmzone.h | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > > > index 47946ce..b01694d 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > > > @@ -1325,7 +1325,7 @@ extern size_t mem_section_usage_size(void);
> > > > #define SECTION_TAINT_ZONE_DEVICE (1UL<<4)
> > > > #define SECTION_MAP_LAST_BIT (1UL<<5)
> > > > #define SECTION_MAP_MASK (~(SECTION_MAP_LAST_BIT-1))
> > > > -#define SECTION_NID_SHIFT 3
> > > > +#define SECTION_NID_SHIFT order_base_2(SECTION_MAP_LAST_BIT)
> > > > static inline struct page *__section_mem_map_addr(struct mem_section *section)
> > > > {
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, all sections around during boot that have an early NID are early ...
> > > so it's not an issue with SECTION_IS_EARLY, no? I mean, it's ugly, but not
> > > broken.
> > >
> > > But it's an issue with SECTION_TAINT_ZONE_DEVICE, AFAIKT.
> > > sparse_init_one_section() would leave the bit set if the nid happens to have
> > > that bit set (e.g., node 2,3). It's semi-broken then, because we force all
> > > pfn_to_online_page() through the slow path.
> > >
> > >
> > > That whole section flag setting code is fragile.
> >
> > Hi Wensheng, David,
> >
> > This patch seems not accepted or updated yet, so what's going on?
> >
> > We recently saw the exact issue on testing crash utilities with latest
> > kernels on 4 NUMA node system. SECTION_TAINT_ZONE_DEVICE seems to be
> > set wrongly, and makedumpfile could fail due to this. So we need a fix.
> >
> > I thought of another approach like below before finding this thread,
> > so if you are fine, I'd like to submit a patch with this. And if you
> > like going with order_base_2() approach, I'm glad to ack this patch.
> >
> > --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > @@ -1358,14 +1358,15 @@ extern size_t mem_section_usage_size(void);
> > * which results in PFN_SECTION_SHIFT equal 6.
> > * To sum it up, at least 6 bits are available.
> > */
> > +#define SECTION_MAP_LAST_SHIFT 5
> > #define SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT (1UL<<0)
> > #define SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP (1UL<<1)
> > #define SECTION_IS_ONLINE (1UL<<2)
> > #define SECTION_IS_EARLY (1UL<<3)
> > #define SECTION_TAINT_ZONE_DEVICE (1UL<<4)
> > -#define SECTION_MAP_LAST_BIT (1UL<<5)
> > +#define SECTION_MAP_LAST_BIT (1UL<<SECTION_MAP_LAST_SHIFT)
> > #define SECTION_MAP_MASK (~(SECTION_MAP_LAST_BIT-1))
> > -#define SECTION_NID_SHIFT 3
> > +#define SECTION_NID_SHIFT SECTION_MAP_LAST_SHIFT
>
> Rather than make it dynamic, why not just make it 6 directly since
> that matches the comment about the maximum number of flags available.
Sounds nice to me, so here's a patch. Could you review this?
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
---