Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-196343-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <8d906c2a-8666-430c-aa41-2db6ec0088e5@suse.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 08:21:52 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/NUMA: don't pass MAX_NUMNODES to memblock_set_node()
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
 Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
 lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <abadb736-a239-49e4-ab42-ace7acdd4278@suse.com>
 <e33ec69b-21e0-46e3-9b70-6d89548a145b@intel.com>
 <997fcbc7-4e75-4aa2-974c-15d984f02d02@suse.com>
 <bec94a1e-8c87-461a-a8db-1ea57385e745@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@suse.com; keydata=
 xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk
 hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK
 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD
 /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py
 O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl
 MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP
 nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo
 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp
 Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC
 AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee
 e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF
 hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l
 IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS
 FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj
 t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8
 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3
 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9
 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V
 m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM
 EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr
 wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A
 nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
In-Reply-To: <bec94a1e-8c87-461a-a8db-1ea57385e745@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 29.05.2024 18:08, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/29/24 09:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> In other words, it's not completely clear why ff6c3d81f2e8 introduced
>>> this problem.
>> It is my understanding that said change, by preventing the NUMA
>> configuration from being rejected, resulted in different code paths to
>> be taken. The observed crash was somewhat later than the "No NUMA
>> configuration found" etc messages. Thus I don't really see a connection
>> between said change not having had any MAX_NUMNODES check and it having
>> introduced the (only perceived?) regression.
> 
> So your system has a bad NUMA config.  If it's rejected, then all is
> merry.  Something goes and writes over the nids in all of the memblocks
> to point to 0 (probably).
> 
> If it _isn't_ rejected, then it leaves a memblock in place that points
> to MAX_NUMNODES.  That MAX_NUMNODES is a ticking time bomb for later.
> 
> So this patch doesn't actually revert the rejection behavior change in
> the Fixes: commit.  It just makes the rest of the code more tolerant to
> _not_ rejecting the NUMA config?

No, the NUMA config is now properly rejected again:

NUMA: no nodes coverage for 2041MB of 8185MB RAM
No NUMA configuration found
Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000027fffffff]

Jan