linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
	rafael@kernel.org, nathanl@linux.ibm.com, cheloha@linux.ibm.com,
	stable@vger.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't rely on system state to detect hot-plug operations
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 14:38:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <391488b4-1603-efe7-3a80-54f407bd67ed@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ac9d3ea9-3735-8d38-e2d3-4eb69d5471b1@linux.ibm.com>

On 10.09.20 14:36, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> Le 10/09/2020 à 14:00, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
>> On 10.09.20 13:35, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>> Le 10/09/2020 à 13:12, Michal Hocko a écrit :
>>>> On Thu 10-09-20 09:51:39, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>>> Le 10/09/2020 à 09:23, Michal Hocko a écrit :
>>>>>> On Wed 09-09-20 18:07:15, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 09/09/2020 à 12:59, Michal Hocko a écrit :
>>>>>>>> On Wed 09-09-20 11:21:58, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> For the point a, using the enum allows to know in
>>>>>>>>> register_mem_sect_under_node() if the link operation is due to a hotplug
>>>>>>>>> operation or done at boot time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, but let me repeat. We have a mess here and different paths check
>>>>>>>> for the very same condition by different ways. We need to unify those.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are you suggesting to unify these checks (using a MP_* enum as
>>>>>>> suggested by David, something else)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We do have system_state check spread at different places. I would use
>>>>>> this one and wrap it behind a helper. Or have I missed any reason why
>>>>>> that wouldn't work for this case?
>>>>>
>>>>> That would not work in that case because memory can be hot-added at the
>>>>> SYSTEM_SCHEDULING system state and the regular memory is also registered at
>>>>> that system state too. So system state is not enough to discriminate between
>>>>> the both.
>>>>
>>>> If that is really the case all other places need a fix as well.
>>>> Btw. could you be more specific about memory hotplug during early boot?
>>>> How that happens? I am only aware of https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200818110046.6664-1-osalvador@suse.de
>>>> and that doesn't happen as early as SYSTEM_SCHEDULING.
>>>
>>> That points has been raised by David, quoting him here:
>>>
>>>> IIRC, ACPI can hotadd memory while SCHEDULING, this patch would break that.
>>>>
>>>> Ccing Oscar, I think he mentioned recently that this is the case with ACPI.
>>>
>>> Oscar told that he need to investigate further on that.
>>>
>>> On my side I can't get these ACPI "early" hot-plug operations to happen so I
>>> can't check that.
>>>
>>> If this is clear that ACPI memory hotplug doesn't happen at SYSTEM_SCHEDULING,
>>> the patch I proposed at first is enough to fix the issue.
>>>
>>
>> Booting a qemu guest with 4 coldplugged DIMMs gives me:
>>
>> :/root# dmesg | grep link_mem
>> [    0.302247] link_mem_sections() during 1
>> [    0.445086] link_mem_sections() during 1
>> [    0.445766] link_mem_sections() during 1
>> [    0.446749] link_mem_sections() during 1
>> [    0.447746] link_mem_sections() during 1
>>
>> So AFAICs everything happens during SYSTEM_SCHEDULING - boot memory and
>> ACPI (cold)plug.
>>
>> To make forward progress with this, relying on the system_state is
>> obviously not sufficient.
>>
>> 1. We have to fix this instance and the instance directly in
>> get_nid_for_pfn() by passing in the context (I once had a patch to clean
>> that up, to not have two state checks, but it got lost somewhere).
>>
>> 2. The "system_state < SYSTEM_RUNNING" check in
>> register_memory_resource() is correct. Actual memory hotplug after boot
>> is not impacted. (I remember we discussed this exact behavior back then)
>>
>> 3. build_all_zonelists() should work as expected, called from
>> start_kernel() before sched_init().
> 
> I'm bit confused now.
> Since hotplug operation is happening at SYSTEM_SCHEDULING like the regular 
> memory registration, would it be enough to add a parameter to 
> register_mem_sect_under_node() (reworking the memmap_context enum)?
> That way the check is not based on the system state but on the calling path.
> 

That would have been my suggestion to definitely fix it - maybe
Michal/Oscar have a better suggestion know that we know what's going on.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb


  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-10 21:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <5cbd92e1-c00a-4253-0119-c872bfa0f2bc@redhat.com>
     [not found] ` <20200908170835.85440-1-ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
2020-09-09  7:40   ` [PATCH] mm: don't rely on system state to detect hot-plug operations Michal Hocko
2020-09-09  7:48     ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-09  9:09       ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-09  9:21         ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-09  9:24           ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-09  9:32             ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-09 12:30             ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-09-09 12:32               ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-09 12:36                 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-09-09 12:45                 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-09 10:59           ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-09 16:07             ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-10  7:23               ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10  7:51                 ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-10 11:12                   ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 11:35                     ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-10 12:00                       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-10 12:36                         ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-10 12:38                           ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2020-09-10 12:01                       ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 12:03                       ` Oscar Salvador
2020-09-10 12:32                         ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-10 12:47                         ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 12:48                           ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 13:39                             ` Oscar Salvador
2020-09-10 13:51                               ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 14:40                                 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 12:49                           ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-10 13:54                             ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 13:57                               ` David Hildenbrand

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=391488b4-1603-efe7-3a80-54f407bd67ed@redhat.com \
    --to=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cheloha@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=ldufour@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=nathanl@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=osalvador@suse.de \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /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).