From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Leonardo Bras <leonardo@linux.ibm.com>,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>,
Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>,
Nathan Fontenot <nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
lantianyu1986@gmail.com,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1] mm: is_mem_section_removable() overhaul
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 17:10:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <25a94f61-46a1-59a6-6b54-8cc6b35790d2@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4hHHzdPp4SQ0sePzx7XEvD7U_B+vZDT00O6VbFY8kJqjw@mail.gmail.com>
On 17.01.20 16:54, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 7:30 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri 17-01-20 15:58:26, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 17.01.20 15:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Fri 17-01-20 14:08:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 17.01.20 12:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri 17-01-20 11:57:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>> Let's refactor that code. We want to check if we can offline memory
>>>>>>> blocks. Add a new function is_mem_section_offlineable() for that and
>>>>>>> make it call is_mem_section_offlineable() for each contained section.
>>>>>>> Within is_mem_section_offlineable(), add some more sanity checks and
>>>>>>> directly bail out if the section contains holes or if it spans multiple
>>>>>>> zones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't read the patch (yet) but I am wondering. If we want to touch
>>>>>> this code, can we simply always return true there? I mean whoever
>>>>>> depends on this check is racy and the failure can happen even after
>>>>>> the sysfs says good to go, right? The check is essentially as expensive
>>>>>> as calling the offlining code itself. So the only usecase I can think of
>>>>>> is a dumb driver to crawl over blocks and check which is removable and
>>>>>> try to hotremove it. But just trying to offline one block after another
>>>>>> is essentially going to achieve the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some thoughts:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. It allows you to check if memory is likely to be offlineable without
>>>>> doing expensive locking and trying to isolate pages (meaning:
>>>>> zone->lock, mem_hotplug_lock. but also, calling drain_all_pages()
>>>>> when isolating)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. There are use cases that want to identify a memory block/DIMM to
>>>>> unplug. One example is PPC DLPAR code (see this patch). Going over all
>>>>> memory block trying to offline them is an expensive operation.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. powerpc-utils (https://github.com/ibm-power-utilities/powerpc-utils)
>>>>> makes use of /sys/.../removable to speed up the search AFAIK.
>>>>
>>>> Well, while I do see those points I am not really sure they are worth
>>>> having a broken (by-definition) interface.
>>>
>>> It's a pure speedup. And for that, the interface has been working
>>> perfectly fine for years?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 4. lsmem displays/groups by "removable".
>>>>
>>>> Is anybody really using that?
>>>
>>> Well at least I am using that when testing to identify which
>>> (ZONE_NORMAL!) block I can easily offline/re-online (e.g., to validate
>>> all the zone shrinking stuff I have been fixing)
>>>
>>> So there is at least one user ;)
>>
>> Fair enough. But I would argue that there are better ways to do the same
>> solely for testing purposes. Rather than having a subtly broken code to
>> maintain.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Or does anybody see any reasonable usecase that would break if we did
>>>>>> that unconditional behavior?
>>>>>
>>>>> If we would return always "true", then the whole reason the
>>>>> interface originally was introduced would be "broken" (meaning, less
>>>>> performant as you would try to offline any memory block).
>>>>
>>>> I would argue that the whole interface is broken ;). Not the first time
>>>> in the kernel development history and not the last time either. What I
>>>> am trying to say here is that unless there are _real_ usecases depending
>>>> on knowing that something surely is _not_ offlineable then I would just
>>>> try to drop the functionality while preserving the interface and see
>>>> what happens.
>>>
>>> I can see that, but I can perfectly well understand why - especially
>>> powerpc - wants a fast way to sense which blocks actually sense to try
>>> to online.
>>>
>>> The original patch correctly states
>>> "which sections of
>>> memory are likely to be removable before attempting the potentially
>>> expensive operation."
>>>
>>> It works as designed I would say.
>>
>> Then I would just keep it crippled the same way it has been for years
>> without anybody noticing.
>
> I tend to agree. At least the kmem driver that wants to unplug memory
> could not use an interface that does not give stable answers. It just
> relies on remove_memory() to return a definitive error.
>
Just because kmem cannot reuse such an interface doesn't mean we should
not touch it (or I am not getting your point). Especially, this
interface is about "can it be likely be offlined and then eventually be
removed (if there is a HW interface for that)" (as documented), not
about "will remove_memory()" work.
We do have users and if we agree to keep it (what I think we should as I
expressed) then I think we should un-cripple and fix it. After all we
have to maintain it. The current interface provides what was documented
- "likely to be offlineable". (the chosen name was just horribly bad -
as I expressed a while ago already :) )
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-17 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-17 10:57 [PATCH RFC v1] mm: is_mem_section_removable() overhaul David Hildenbrand
2020-01-17 11:33 ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-17 13:08 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-01-17 14:52 ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-17 14:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-01-17 15:29 ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-17 15:54 ` Dan Williams
2020-01-17 16:10 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2020-01-17 16:57 ` Dan Williams
2020-01-20 7:48 ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-20 9:14 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-01-20 9:20 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-01-21 12:07 ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-22 10:39 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-01-22 10:42 ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-22 10:54 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-01-22 11:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-01-22 16:46 ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-22 18:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-01-22 18:38 ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-22 18:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-01-22 19:09 ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-22 20:51 ` Dan Williams
2020-01-22 19:01 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=25a94f61-46a1-59a6-6b54-8cc6b35790d2@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=allison@lohutok.net \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lantianyu1986@gmail.com \
--cc=leonardo@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=nathanl@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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).