Re: [PATCH] migration/mm: Add WARN_ON to try_offline_node

From: Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Falcon <tlfalcon@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauricfo@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Juliet Kim <minkim@us.ibm.com>,
	Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Nathan Fontenot <nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	YASUAKI ISHIMATSU <yasu.isimatu@gmail.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] migration/mm: Add WARN_ON to try_offline_node
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 16:23:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <75acdad4-f0f4-f9c6-8a5c-3df44d4882cf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181001202724.GL18290@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On 10/01/2018 01:27 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 01-10-18 13:56:25, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>> In some LPAR migration scenarios, device-tree modifications are
>> made to the affinity of the memory in the system.  For instance,
>> it may occur that memory is installed to nodes 0,3 on a source
>> system, and to nodes 0,2 on a target system.  Node 2 may not
>> have been initialized/allocated on the target system.
>>
>> After migration, if a RTAS PRRN memory remove is made to a
>> memory block that was in node 3 on the source system, then
>> try_offline_node tries to remove it from node 2 on the target.
>> The NODE_DATA(2) block would not be initialized on the target,
>> and there is no validation check in the current code to prevent
>> the use of a NULL pointer.
> 
> I am not familiar with ppc and the above doesn't really help me
> much. Sorry about that. But from the above it is not clear to me whether
> it is the caller which does something unexpected or the hotplug code
> being not robust enough. From your changelog I would suggest the later
> but why don't we see the same problem for other archs? Is this a problem
> of unrolling a partial failure?
> 
> dlpar_remove_lmb does the following
> 
> 	nid = memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(lmb->base_addr);
> 
> 	remove_memory(nid, lmb->base_addr, block_sz);
> 
> 	/* Update memory regions for memory remove */
> 	memblock_remove(lmb->base_addr, block_sz);
> 
> 	dlpar_remove_device_tree_lmb(lmb);
> 
> Is the whole operation correct when remove_memory simply backs off
> silently. Why don't we have to care about memblock resp
> dlpar_remove_device_tree_lmb parts? In other words how come the physical
> memory range is valid while the node association is not?
> 

I guess with respect to my previous reply that patch in conjunction with this patch set as well?

https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20181001125846.2676.89826.stgit@ltcalpine2-lp9.aus.stglabs.ibm.com/T/#t

-Tyrel