linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/3] arm64/mm/hotplug: Ensure early memory sections are all online
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:53:50 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <471fed64-0f61-9c16-3943-2bb8f77ee810@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1601387687-6077-4-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>

Hi Anshuman,

On 9/29/20 11:54 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This adds a validation function that scans the entire boot memory and makes
> sure that all early memory sections are online. This check is essential for
> the memory notifier to work properly, as it cannot prevent any boot memory
> from offlining, if all sections are not online to begin with. The notifier
> registration is skipped, if this validation does not go through. Although
> the boot section scanning is selectively enabled with DEBUG_VM.
> 
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
> ---
>   arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 59 insertions(+)

I don't understand why this is necessary. The core already ensure the
corresponding section is online when trying to offline it. It's guranteed
that section is online when the notifier is triggered. I'm not sure if
there is anything I missed?
  

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> index 90a30f5ebfc0..b67a657ea1ad 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> @@ -1522,6 +1522,62 @@ static struct notifier_block prevent_bootmem_remove_nb = {
>   	.notifier_call = prevent_bootmem_remove_notifier,
>   };
>   
> +/*
> + * This ensures that boot memory sections on the plaltform are online
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^
> + * during early boot. They could not be prevented from being offlined
> + * if for some reason they are not brought online to begin with. This
> + * help validate the basic assumption on which the above memory event
> + * notifier works to prevent boot memory offlining and it's possible
> + * removal.
> + */
> +static bool validate_bootmem_online(void)
> +{
> +	struct memblock_region *mblk;
> +	struct mem_section *ms;
> +	unsigned long pfn, end_pfn, start, end;
> +	bool all_online = true;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Scanning across all memblock might be expensive
> +	 * on some big memory systems. Hence enable this
> +	 * validation only with DEBUG_VM.
> +	 */
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_VM))
> +		return all_online;
> +
> +	for_each_memblock(memory, mblk) {
> +		pfn = PHYS_PFN(mblk->base);
> +		end_pfn = PHYS_PFN(mblk->base + mblk->size);
> +

It's not a good idea to access @mblk->{base, size}. There are two
accessors: memblock_region_memory_{base, end}_pfn().

> +		for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
> +			ms = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
> +
> +			/*
> +			 * All memory ranges in the system at this point
> +			 * should have been marked early sections.
> +			 */
> +			WARN_ON(!early_section(ms));
> +
> +			/*
> +			 * Memory notifier mechanism here to prevent boot
> +			 * memory offlining depends on the fact that each
> +			 * early section memory on the system is intially
> +			 * online. Otherwise a given memory section which
> +			 * is already offline will be overlooked and can
> +			 * be removed completely. Call out such sections.
> +			 */

s/intially/initially

> +			if (!online_section(ms)) {
> +				start = PFN_PHYS(pfn);
> +				end = start + (1UL << PA_SECTION_SHIFT);
> +				pr_err("Memory range [%lx %lx] is offline\n", start, end);
> +				pr_err("Memory range [%lx %lx] can be removed\n", start, end);
> +				all_online = false;

These two error messages can be combined:

     pr_err("Memory range [%lx %lx] not online, can't be offlined\n",
            start, end);

I think you need to return @all_online immediately, without
checking if the subsequent sections are online or not? :)

> +			}
> +		}
> +	}
> +	return all_online;
> +}
> +
>   static int __init prevent_bootmem_remove_init(void)
>   {
>   	int ret = 0;
> @@ -1529,6 +1585,9 @@ static int __init prevent_bootmem_remove_init(void)
>   	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE))
>   		return ret;
>   
> +	if (!validate_bootmem_online())
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
>   	ret = register_memory_notifier(&prevent_bootmem_remove_nb);
>   	if (ret)
>   		pr_err("%s: Notifier registration failed %d\n", __func__, ret);
> 

Cheers,
Gavin


  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-01  0:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-29 13:54 [PATCH V4 0/3] arm64/mm/hotplug: Improve memory offline event notifier Anshuman Khandual
2020-09-29 13:54 ` [PATCH V4 1/3] arm64/mm/hotplug: Register boot memory hot remove notifier earlier Anshuman Khandual
2020-10-01 13:51   ` Catalin Marinas
2020-09-29 13:54 ` [PATCH V4 2/3] arm64/mm/hotplug: Enable MEM_OFFLINE event handling Anshuman Khandual
2020-09-30 23:57   ` Gavin Shan
2020-10-06  2:59     ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-10-12  3:27       ` Gavin Shan
2020-09-29 13:54 ` [PATCH V4 3/3] arm64/mm/hotplug: Ensure early memory sections are all online Anshuman Khandual
2020-10-01  0:53   ` Gavin Shan [this message]
2020-10-06  3:11     ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-10-12  4:07       ` Gavin Shan

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=471fed64-0f61-9c16-3943-2bb8f77ee810@redhat.com \
    --to=gshan@redhat.com \
    --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=steve.capper@arm.com \
    --cc=will@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).