lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Automatic NUMA balancing patches for tip-urgent/stable

* Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 11:28:38AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > This series has roughly the same goals as previous versions despite the
> > size. It reduces overhead of automatic balancing through scan rate reduction
> > and the avoidance of TLB flushes. It selects a preferred node and moves tasks
> > towards their memory as well as moving memory toward their task. It handles
> > shared pages and groups related tasks together. Some problems such as shared
> > page interleaving and properly dealing with processes that are larger than
> > a node are being deferred. This version should be ready for wider testing
> > in -tip.
> >
>
> Hi Ingo,
>
> Off-list we talked with Peter about the fact that automatic NUMA
> balancing as merged in 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12 shortly may corrupt
> userspace memory. There is one LKML report on this that I'm aware of --
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/31/647 which I prompt forgot to follow up
> properly on . The user-visible effect is that pages get filled with zeros
> with results such as null pointer exceptions in JVMs. It is fairly difficult
> to trigger but it became much easier to trigger during the development of
> the series "Basic scheduler support for automatic NUMA balancing" which
> is how it was discovered and finally fixed.
>
> In that series I tagged patches 2-9 for -stable as these patches addressed
> the problem for me. I did not call it out as clearly as I should have
> and did not realise the cc: stable tags were stripped. Worse, as it was
> close to the release and the bug is relatively old I was ok with waiting
> until 3.12 came out and then treat it as a -stable backport. It has been
> highlighted that this is the wrong attitude and we should consider merging
> the fixes now and backporting to -stable sooner rather than later.
>
> The most important patches are
>
> mm: Wait for THP migrations to complete during NUMA hinting fault
> mm: Prevent parallel splits during THP migration
> mm: Close races between THP migration and PMD numa clearing
>
> but on their own they will cause conflicts with tricky fixups and -stable
> would differ from mainline in annoying ways. Patches 2-9 have been heavily
> tested in isolation so I'm reasonably confident they fix the problem and are
> -stable material. While strictly speaking not all the patches are required
> for the fix, the -stable kernels would then be directly comparable with
> 3.13 when the full NUMA balancing series is applied. If I rework them at
> this point then I'll also have to retest delaying things until next week.
>
> Please consider queueing patches 2-9 for 3.12 via -urgent if it is
> not too late and preserve the cc: stable tags so Greg will pick
> them up automatically.

Would be nice if you gave me all the specific SHA1 tags of
sched/core that are required for the fix. We can certainly
use a range to make it all safer to apply.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-26 14:41    [W:0.446 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site