* Mel Gorman <[email protected]> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
