[PATCH] mm: numa: bugfix for LAST_CPUPID_NOT_IN_PAGE_FLAGS

[Aneesh Kumar K.V]

Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Wed,  5 Feb 2014 09:25:46 +0800 Liu Ping Fan <qemulist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When doing some numa tests on powerpc, I triggered an oops bug. I find
>> it is caused by using page->_last_cpupid.  It should be initialized as
>> "-1 & LAST_CPUPID_MASK", but not "-1". Otherwise, in task_numa_fault(),
>> we will miss the checking (last_cpupid == (-1 & LAST_CPUPID_MASK)).
>> And finally cause an oops bug in task_numa_group(), since the online cpu is
>> less than possible cpu.
>
> I grabbed this.  I added this to the changelog:
>
> : PPC needs the LAST_CPUPID_NOT_IN_PAGE_FLAGS case because ppc needs to
> : support a large physical address region, up to 2^46 but small section size
> : (2^24).  So when NR_CPUS grows up, it is easily to cause
> : not-in-page-flags.
>
> to hopefully address Peter's observation.
>
> How should we proceed with this?  I'm getting the impression that numa
> balancing on ppc is a dead duck in 3.14, so perhaps this and 
>
> powerpc-mm-add-new-set-flag-argument-to-pte-pmd-update-function.patch
> mm-dirty-accountable-change-only-apply-to-non-prot-numa-case.patch
> mm-use-ptep-pmdp_set_numa-for-updating-_page_numa-bit.patch
>

All these are already in 3.14  ?

> are 3.15-rc1 material?
>

We should push the first hunk to 3.14. I will wait for Liu to redo the
patch. BTW this should happen only when SPARSE_VMEMMAP is not
specified. Srikar had reported the issue here

http://mid.gmane.org/20140219180200.GA29257@linux.vnet.ibm.com

#if defined(CONFIG_SPARSEMEM) && !defined(CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP)
#define SECTIONS_WIDTH		SECTIONS_SHIFT
#else
#define SECTIONS_WIDTH		0
#endif

-aneesh