From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, yinghai@kernel.org,
brgerst@gmail.com, gorcunov@gmail.com, shaohui.zheng@intel.com,
rientjes@google.com, mingo@elte.hu, hpa@linux.intel.com
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 21/26] x86-64, NUMA: consolidate and improve memblk sanity checks
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 18:10:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1297530663-26234-22-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1297530663-26234-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
memblk sanity check was scattered around and incomplete. Consolidate
and improve.
* Confliction detection and cutoff_node() logic are moved to
numa_cleanup_meminfo().
* numa_cleanup_meminfo() clears the unused memblks before returning.
* Check and warn about invalid input parameters in numa_add_memblk().
* Check the maximum number of memblk isn't exceeded in
numa_add_memblk().
* numa_cleanup_meminfo() is now called before numa_emulation() so that
the emulation code also uses the cleaned up version.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Cc: Shaohui Zheng <shaohui.zheng@intel.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
---
arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c | 99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
1 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
index 62ba1fd..1996ee7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
@@ -189,37 +189,23 @@ static void * __init early_node_mem(int nodeid, unsigned long start,
return NULL;
}
-static __init int conflicting_memblks(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
+int __init numa_add_memblk(int nid, u64 start, u64 end)
{
struct numa_meminfo *mi = &numa_meminfo;
- int i;
- for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) {
- struct numa_memblk *blk = &mi->blk[i];
+ /* ignore zero length blks */
+ if (start == end)
+ return 0;
- if (blk->start == blk->end)
- continue;
- if (blk->end > start && blk->start < end)
- return blk->nid;
- if (blk->end == end && blk->start == start)
- return blk->nid;
+ /* whine about and ignore invalid blks */
+ if (start > end || nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
+ pr_warning("NUMA: Warning: invalid memblk node %d (%Lx-%Lx)\n",
+ nid, start, end);
+ return 0;
}
- return -1;
-}
-
-int __init numa_add_memblk(int nid, u64 start, u64 end)
-{
- struct numa_meminfo *mi = &numa_meminfo;
- int i;
- i = conflicting_memblks(start, end);
- if (i == nid) {
- printk(KERN_WARNING "NUMA: Warning: node %d (%Lx-%Lx) overlaps with itself (%Lx-%Lx)\n",
- nid, start, end, numa_nodes[i].start, numa_nodes[i].end);
- } else if (i >= 0) {
- printk(KERN_ERR "NUMA: node %d (%Lx-%Lx) overlaps with node %d (%Lx-%Lx)\n",
- nid, start, end, i,
- numa_nodes[i].start, numa_nodes[i].end);
+ if (mi->nr_blks >= NR_NODE_MEMBLKS) {
+ pr_err("NUMA: too many memblk ranges\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
@@ -237,22 +223,6 @@ static void __init numa_remove_memblk_from(int idx, struct numa_meminfo *mi)
(mi->nr_blks - idx) * sizeof(mi->blk[0]));
}
-static __init void cutoff_node(int i, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
-{
- struct bootnode *nd = &numa_nodes[i];
-
- if (nd->start < start) {
- nd->start = start;
- if (nd->end < nd->start)
- nd->start = nd->end;
- }
- if (nd->end > end) {
- nd->end = end;
- if (nd->start > nd->end)
- nd->start = nd->end;
- }
-}
-
/* Initialize bootmem allocator for a node */
void __init
setup_node_bootmem(int nodeid, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
@@ -301,24 +271,53 @@ setup_node_bootmem(int nodeid, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
static int __init numa_cleanup_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
{
+ const u64 low = 0;
+ const u64 high = (u64)max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
int i, j, k;
for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) {
struct numa_memblk *bi = &mi->blk[i];
+ /* make sure all blocks are inside the limits */
+ bi->start = max(bi->start, low);
+ bi->end = min(bi->end, high);
+
+ /* and there's no empty block */
+ if (bi->start == bi->end) {
+ numa_remove_memblk_from(i--, mi);
+ continue;
+ }
+
for (j = i + 1; j < mi->nr_blks; j++) {
struct numa_memblk *bj = &mi->blk[j];
unsigned long start, end;
/*
+ * See whether there are overlapping blocks. Whine
+ * about but allow overlaps of the same nid. They
+ * will be merged below.
+ */
+ if (bi->end > bj->start && bi->start < bj->end) {
+ if (bi->nid != bj->nid) {
+ pr_err("NUMA: node %d (%Lx-%Lx) overlaps with node %d (%Lx-%Lx)\n",
+ bi->nid, bi->start, bi->end,
+ bj->nid, bj->start, bj->end);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ pr_warning("NUMA: Warning: node %d (%Lx-%Lx) overlaps with itself (%Lx-%Lx)\n",
+ bi->nid, bi->start, bi->end,
+ bj->start, bj->end);
+ }
+
+ /*
* Join together blocks on the same node, holes
* between which don't overlap with memory on other
* nodes.
*/
if (bi->nid != bj->nid)
continue;
- start = min(bi->start, bj->start);
- end = max(bi->end, bj->end);
+ start = max(min(bi->start, bj->start), low);
+ end = min(max(bi->end, bj->end), high);
for (k = 0; k < mi->nr_blks; k++) {
struct numa_memblk *bk = &mi->blk[k];
@@ -338,6 +337,11 @@ static int __init numa_cleanup_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
}
}
+ for (i = mi->nr_blks; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mi->blk); i++) {
+ mi->blk[i].start = mi->blk[i].end = 0;
+ mi->blk[i].nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
+ }
+
return 0;
}
@@ -821,10 +825,8 @@ void __init initmem_init(void)
if (numa_init[i]() < 0)
continue;
- /* clean up the node list */
- for (j = 0; j < MAX_NUMNODES; j++)
- cutoff_node(j, 0, max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT);
-
+ if (numa_cleanup_meminfo(&numa_meminfo) < 0)
+ continue;
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_EMU
setup_physnodes(0, max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT);
if (cmdline && !numa_emulation(0, max_pfn, i == 0, i == 1))
@@ -833,9 +835,6 @@ void __init initmem_init(void)
nodes_clear(node_possible_map);
nodes_clear(node_online_map);
#endif
- if (numa_cleanup_meminfo(&numa_meminfo) < 0)
- continue;
-
if (numa_register_memblks(&numa_meminfo) < 0)
continue;
--
1.7.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-12 17:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-12 17:10 [PATCHSET x86/numa] x86-64, NUMA: bring sanity to NUMA configuration Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 01/26] x86-64, NUMA: Make dummy node initialization path similar to non-dummy ones Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:52 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 02/26] x86-64, NUMA: Simplify hotplug node handling in acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:47 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 17:56 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 18:04 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 18:06 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 18:13 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 11:25 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 16:12 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 03/26] x86-64, NUMA: Drop @start/last_pfn from initmem_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:58 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 18:03 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 13:50 ` [PATCH UPDATED 03/26] x86, NUMA: Drop @start/last_pfn from initmem_init() initmem_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 14:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-14 14:58 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 19:03 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 19:31 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-15 2:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 04/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify {acpi|amd}_{numa_init|scan_nodes}() arguments and return values Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 18:39 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 11:29 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 16:14 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 16:18 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 18:00 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 05/26] x86-64, NUMA: Wrap acpi_numa_init() so that failure can be indicated by return value Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 06/26] x86-64, NUMA: Move *_numa_init() invocations into initmem_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 6:10 ` Ankita Garg
2011-02-14 11:09 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 13:51 ` [PATCH UPDATED 06/26] x86, " Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 14:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 07/26] x86-64, NUMA: Restructure initmem_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 08/26] x86-64, NUMA: Use common {cpu|mem}_nodes_parsed Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 09/26] x86-64, NUMA: Remove local variable found from amd_numa_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 10/26] x86-64, NUMA: Move apicid to numa mapping initialization from amd_scan_nodes() to amd_numa_init() Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 22:59 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2011-02-15 9:36 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-15 17:31 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2011-02-15 17:54 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-15 18:01 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2011-02-15 18:27 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2011-02-15 19:41 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 11/26] x86-64, NUMA: Use common numa_nodes[] Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 12/26] x86-64, NUMA: Kill {acpi|amd}_get_nodes() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 13/26] x86-64, NUMA: Factor out memblk handling into numa_{add|register}_memblk() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 14/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify use of memblk in all init methods Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 15/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify the rest of memblk registration Tejun Heo
2011-02-13 0:45 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 11:32 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 16:08 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 16:12 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 16:17 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 16:22 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 18:14 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 18:27 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 19:07 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-14 19:30 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-14 19:35 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-15 9:11 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-15 9:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-15 16:49 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-16 8:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-16 8:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-16 9:01 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-16 9:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 16/26] x86-64, NUMA: Kill {acpi|amd|dummy}_scan_nodes() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 17/26] x86-64, NUMA: Remove %NULL @nodeids handling from compute_hash_shift() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 18/26] x86-64, NUMA: Introduce struct numa_meminfo Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 19/26] x86-64, NUMA: Separate out numa_cleanup_meminfo() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 20/26] x86-64, NUMA: make numa_cleanup_meminfo() prettier Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:10 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-02-12 17:10 ` [PATCH 22/26] x86-64, NUMA: Add common find_node_by_addr() Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:11 ` [PATCH 23/26] x86-64, NUMA: kill numa_nodes[] Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:11 ` [PATCH 24/26] x86-64, NUMA: Rename cpu_nodes_parsed to numa_nodes_parsed Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:11 ` [PATCH 25/26] x86-64, NUMA: Kill mem_nodes_parsed Tejun Heo
2011-02-12 17:11 ` [PATCH 26/26] x86-64, NUMA: Implement generic node distance handling Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1297530663-26234-22-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shaohui.zheng@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome