From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158F6C46470 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:52:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29EF217B7 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:52:15 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C29EF217B7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388734AbeHGOGM (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Aug 2018 10:06:12 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41340 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727048AbeHGOGM (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Aug 2018 10:06:12 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93440AF57; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:52:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] resource: Merge resources on a node when hot-adding memory To: Rashmica Gupta , toshi.kani@hpe.com, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@suse.de, brijesh.singh@amd.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, jglisse@redhat.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, mhocko@suse.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, malat@debian.org, pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, bhelgaas@google.com, osalvador@techadventures.net, yasu.isimatu@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20180806065224.31383-1-rashmica.g@gmail.com> From: Vlastimil Babka Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=vbabka@suse.cz; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsFNBFZdmxYBEADsw/SiUSjB0dM+vSh95UkgcHjzEVBlby/Fg+g42O7LAEkCYXi/vvq31JTB KxRWDHX0R2tgpFDXHnzZcQywawu8eSq0LxzxFNYMvtB7sV1pxYwej2qx9B75qW2plBs+7+YB 87tMFA+u+L4Z5xAzIimfLD5EKC56kJ1CsXlM8S/LHcmdD9Ctkn3trYDNnat0eoAcfPIP2OZ+ 9oe9IF/R28zmh0ifLXyJQQz5ofdj4bPf8ecEW0rhcqHfTD8k4yK0xxt3xW+6Exqp9n9bydiy tcSAw/TahjW6yrA+6JhSBv1v2tIm+itQc073zjSX8OFL51qQVzRFr7H2UQG33lw2QrvHRXqD Ot7ViKam7v0Ho9wEWiQOOZlHItOOXFphWb2yq3nzrKe45oWoSgkxKb97MVsQ+q2SYjJRBBH4 8qKhphADYxkIP6yut/eaj9ImvRUZZRi0DTc8xfnvHGTjKbJzC2xpFcY0DQbZzuwsIZ8OPJCc LM4S7mT25NE5kUTG/TKQCk922vRdGVMoLA7dIQrgXnRXtyT61sg8PG4wcfOnuWf8577aXP1x 6mzw3/jh3F+oSBHb/GcLC7mvWreJifUL2gEdssGfXhGWBo6zLS3qhgtwjay0Jl+kza1lo+Cv BB2T79D4WGdDuVa4eOrQ02TxqGN7G0Biz5ZLRSFzQSQwLn8fbwARAQABzSFWbGFzdGltaWwg QmFia2EgPHZiYWJrYUBzdXNlLmNvbT7CwZcEEwEKAEECGwMFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQAC HgECF4ACGQEWIQSpQNQ0mSwujpkQPVAiT6fnzIKmZAUCWi/zTwUJBbOLuQAKCRAiT6fnzIKm ZIpED/4jRN/6LKZZIT4R2xoou0nJkBGVA3nfb+mUMgi3uwn/zC+o6jjc3ShmP0LQ0cdeuSt/ t2ytstnuARTFVqZT4/IYzZgBsLM8ODFY5vGfPw00tsZMIfFuVPQX3xs0XgLEHw7/1ZCVyJVr mTzYmV3JruwhMdUvIzwoZ/LXjPiEx1MRdUQYHAWwUfsl8lUZeu2QShL3KubR1eH6lUWN2M7t VcokLsnGg4LTajZzZfq2NqCKEQMY3JkAmOu/ooPTrfHCJYMF/5dpi8YF1CkQF/PVbnYbPUuh dRM0m3NzPtn5DdyfFltJ7fobGR039+zoCo6dFF9fPltwcyLlt1gaItfX5yNbOjX3aJSHY2Vc A5T+XAVC2sCwj0lHvgGDz/dTsMM9Ob/6rRJANlJPRWGYk3WVWnbgW8UejCWtn1FkiY/L/4qJ UsqkId8NkkVdVAenCcHQmOGjRQYTpe6Cf4aQ4HGNDeWEm3H8Uq9vmHhXXcPLkxBLRbGDSHyq vUBVaK+dAwAsXn/5PlGxw1cWtur1ep7RDgG3vVQDhIOpAXAg6HULjcbWpBEFaoH720oyGmO5 kV+yHciYO3nPzz/CZJzP5Ki7Q1zqBb/U6gib2at5Ycvews+vTueYO+rOb9sfD8BFTK386LUK uce7E38owtgo/V2GV4LMWqVOy1xtCB6OAUfnGDU2EM7ATQRbGTU1AQgAn0H6UrFiWcovkh6E XVcl+SeqyO6JHOPm+e9Wu0Vw+VIUvXZVUVVQLa1PQDUi6j00ChlcR66g9/V0sPIcSutacPKf dKYOBvzd4rlhL8rfrdEsQw5ApZxrA8kYZVMhFmBRKAa6wos25moTlMKpCWzTH84+WO5+ziCT sTUZASAToz3RdunTD+vQcHj0GqNTPAHK63sfbAB2I0BslZkXkY1RLb/YhuA6E7JyEd2pilZO rIuBGl/5q2qSakgnAVFWFBR/DO27JuAksYnq+aH8vI0xGvwn75KqSk4UzAkDzWSmO4ZHuahK tQgZNsMYV+PGayRBX9b9zbldzopoLBdqHc4njQARAQABwsF8BBgBCgAmFiEEqUDUNJksLo6Z ED1QIk+n58yCpmQFAlsZNTUCGwwFCQPCZwAACgkQIk+n58yCpmQ83g/9Frg1sRMdGPn98zV+ O2eC3h0p5f/oxxQ8MhG5znwHoW4JDG2TuxfcQuz7X7Dd5JWscjlw4VFJ2DD+IrDAGLHwPhCr RyfKalnrbYokvbClM9EuU1oUuh7k+Sg5ECNXEsamW9AiWGCaKWNDdHre3Lf4xl+RJWxghOVW RiUdpLA/a3yDvJNVr6rxkDHQ1P24ZZz/VKDyP+6g8aty2aWEU0YFNjI+rqYZb2OppDx6fdma YnLDcIfDFnkVlDmpznnGCyEqLLyMS3GH52AH13zMT9L9QYgT303+r6QQpKBIxAwn8Jg8dAlV OLhgeHXKr+pOQdFf6iu2sXlUR4MkO/5KWM1K0jFR2ug8Pb3aKOhowVMBT64G0TXhQ/kX4tZ2 ZF0QZLUCHU3Cigvbu4AWWVMNDEOGD/4sn9OoHxm6J04jLUHFUpFKDcjab4NRNWoHLsuLGjve Gdbr2RKO2oJ5qZj81K7os0/5vTAA4qHDP2EETAQcunTn6aPlkUnJ8aw6I1Rwyg7/XsU7gQHF IM/cUMuWWm7OUUPtJeR8loxZiZciU7SMvN1/B9ycPMFs/A6EEzyG+2zKryWry8k7G/pcPrFx O2PkDPy3YmN1RfpIX2HEmnCEFTTCsKgYORangFu/qOcXvM83N+2viXxG4mjLAMiIml1o2lKV cqmP8roqufIAj+Ohhzs= Message-ID: <5543a32a-20f9-18ff-dc13-73737257ed99@suse.cz> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 13:52:07 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180806065224.31383-1-rashmica.g@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/06/2018 08:52 AM, Rashmica Gupta wrote: > When hot-removing memory release_mem_region_adjustable() splits > iomem resources if they are not the exact size of the memory being > hot-deleted. Adding this memory back to the kernel adds a new > resource. > > Eg a node has memory 0x0 - 0xfffffffff. Offlining and hot-removing > 1GB from 0xf40000000 results in the single resource 0x0-0xfffffffff being > split into two resources: 0x0-0xf3fffffff and 0xf80000000-0xfffffffff. > > When we hot-add the memory back we now have three resources: > 0x0-0xf3fffffff, 0xf40000000-0xf7fffffff, and 0xf80000000-0xfffffffff. > > Now if we try to remove a section of memory that overlaps these resources, > like 2GB from 0xf40000000, release_mem_region_adjustable() fails as it > expects the chunk of memory to be within the boundaries of a single > resource. Hi, it's the first time I see the resource code, so I might be easily wrong. How can it happen that the second remove is section aligned but the first one not? > This patch adds a function request_resource_and_merge(). This is called > instead of request_resource_conflict() when registering a resource in > add_memory(). It calls request_resource_conflict() and if hot-removing is > enabled (if it isn't we won't get resource fragmentation) we attempt to > merge contiguous resources on the node. > > Signed-off-by: Rashmica Gupta ... > --- a/kernel/resource.c > +++ b/kernel/resource.c ... > +/* > + * Attempt to merge resources on the node > + */ > +static void merge_node_resources(int nid, struct resource *parent) > +{ > + struct resource *res; > + uint64_t start_addr; > + uint64_t end_addr; > + int ret; > + > + start_addr = node_start_pfn(nid) << PAGE_SHIFT; > + end_addr = node_end_pfn(nid) << PAGE_SHIFT; > + > + write_lock(&resource_lock); > + > + /* Get the first resource */ > + res = parent->child; > + > + while (res) { > + /* Check that the resource is within the node */ > + if (res->start < start_addr) { > + res = res->sibling; > + continue; > + } > + /* Exit if resource is past end of node */ > + if (res->sibling->end > end_addr) > + break; IIUC, resource end is closed, so adjacent resources's start is end+1. But node_end_pfn is open, so the comparison above should use '>=' instead of '>'? > + > + ret = merge_resources(res); > + if (!ret) > + continue; > + res = res->sibling; Should this rather use next_resource() to merge at all levels of the hierarchy? Although memory seems to be flat under &iomem_resource so it would be just future-proofing. Thanks, Vlastimil