From: David Hildenbrand <email@example.com>
To: "Verma, Vishal L" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Cc: "Williams, Dan J" <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/memory_hotplug: refrain from adding memory into an impossible node
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 18:16:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On 16.04.20 18:13, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 08:19 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 15-04-20 20:32:00, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
>>>> I really do not like this. Why should we try to be clever and change the
>>>> node id requested by the caller? I would just stick with node_possible
>>>> check and be done with this.
>>> Hi Michal,
>>> Being clever allows us to still use the memory even if it is in a non-
>>> optimal configuration. Failing here leaves the user no path to add this
>>> memory until the firmware is fixed. It is the tradeoff between some
>>> usability vs. how loud we want to be for the failure.
>> Doing that papers over something that is clearly a FW issue and makes
>> it "my performance is suboptimal" deal with it OS problem. Really, is
>> this something we have to care about. Your changelog talks about a Qemu
>> misconfiguration which is trivial to fix. Has this ever been observed
>> with a real HW?
> Well - more of a qemu bug I think - I can share the details, but it just
> looked like it was producing a bogus SRAT. I think it is plausible that
> such a firmware bug can happen out in the wild. The NFIT tables would
> just need to reference a 'proximity domain' that the SRAT hasn't
> previously described, and hotplug will happily go add memory from the
> NFIT and the backing node related data structures would be missing.
> I'm not too opposed to erroring out, so long as we are ok with the fact
> that we will leave some memory stranded until there's a firmware fix.
So let's reject it and print a warning, so we know it's a thing. If this
actually shows up often in real live, we have good evidence that we
should tolerate buggy firmwares instead of warning/rejecting.
(rejecting from inside add_memory() still makes sense IMHO)
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-16 16:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-14 23:58 [PATCH v3] mm/memory_hotplug: refrain from adding memory into an impossible node Vishal Verma
2020-04-15 7:39 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-04-15 7:44 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-04-15 10:43 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-15 20:32 ` Verma, Vishal L
2020-04-16 6:19 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-16 16:13 ` Verma, Vishal L
2020-04-16 16:16 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2020-04-16 16:18 ` Verma, Vishal L
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).