[v2,7/8] mm/memory_hotplug: Make unregister_memory_block_under_nodes() never fail
diff mbox series

Message ID 20190507183804.5512-8-david@redhat.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • [v2,1/8] mm/memory_hotplug: Simplify and fix check_hotplug_memory_range()
Related show

Commit Message

David Hildenbrand May 7, 2019, 6:38 p.m. UTC
We really don't want anything during memory hotunplug to fail.
We always pass a valid memory block device, that check can go. Avoid
allocating memory and eventually failing. As we are always called under
lock, we can use a static piece of memory. This avoids having to put
the structure onto the stack, having to guess about the stack size
of callers.

Patch inspired by a patch from Oscar Salvador.

In the future, there might be no need to iterate over nodes at all.
mem->nid should tell us exactly what to remove. Memory block devices
with mixed nodes (added during boot) should properly fenced off and never
removed.

Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/base/node.c  | 18 +++++-------------
 include/linux/node.h |  5 ++---
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

Comments

Dan Williams May 8, 2019, 12:15 a.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 11:39 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> We really don't want anything during memory hotunplug to fail.
> We always pass a valid memory block device, that check can go. Avoid
> allocating memory and eventually failing. As we are always called under
> lock, we can use a static piece of memory. This avoids having to put
> the structure onto the stack, having to guess about the stack size
> of callers.
>
> Patch inspired by a patch from Oscar Salvador.
>
> In the future, there might be no need to iterate over nodes at all.
> mem->nid should tell us exactly what to remove. Memory block devices
> with mixed nodes (added during boot) should properly fenced off and never
> removed.
>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
> Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/node.c  | 18 +++++-------------
>  include/linux/node.h |  5 ++---
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
> index 04fdfa99b8bc..9be88fd05147 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/node.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
> @@ -803,20 +803,14 @@ int register_mem_sect_under_node(struct memory_block *mem_blk, void *arg)
>
>  /*
>   * Unregister memory block device under all nodes that it spans.
> + * Has to be called with mem_sysfs_mutex held (due to unlinked_nodes).

Given this comment can bitrot relative to the implementation lets
instead add an explicit:

    lockdep_assert_held(&mem_sysfs_mutex);

With that you can add:

Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
David Hildenbrand May 8, 2019, 7:21 a.m. UTC | #2
>>  drivers/base/node.c  | 18 +++++-------------
>>  include/linux/node.h |  5 ++---
>>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
>> index 04fdfa99b8bc..9be88fd05147 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/node.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
>> @@ -803,20 +803,14 @@ int register_mem_sect_under_node(struct memory_block *mem_blk, void *arg)
>>
>>  /*
>>   * Unregister memory block device under all nodes that it spans.
>> + * Has to be called with mem_sysfs_mutex held (due to unlinked_nodes).
> 
> Given this comment can bitrot relative to the implementation lets
> instead add an explicit:
> 
>     lockdep_assert_held(&mem_sysfs_mutex);

That would require to make the mutex non-static. Is that what you
suggest, or any other alternative?

Thanks Dan!

> 
> With that you can add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>
Dan Williams May 8, 2019, 1:50 p.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 12:22 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>  drivers/base/node.c  | 18 +++++-------------
> >>  include/linux/node.h |  5 ++---
> >>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
> >> index 04fdfa99b8bc..9be88fd05147 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/base/node.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
> >> @@ -803,20 +803,14 @@ int register_mem_sect_under_node(struct memory_block *mem_blk, void *arg)
> >>
> >>  /*
> >>   * Unregister memory block device under all nodes that it spans.
> >> + * Has to be called with mem_sysfs_mutex held (due to unlinked_nodes).
> >
> > Given this comment can bitrot relative to the implementation lets
> > instead add an explicit:
> >
> >     lockdep_assert_held(&mem_sysfs_mutex);
>
> That would require to make the mutex non-static. Is that what you
> suggest, or any other alternative?

If the concern is other code paths taking the lock when they shouldn't
then you could make a public "lockdep_assert_mem_sysfs_held()" to do
the same, but I otherwise think the benefit of inline lock validation
is worth the price of adding a new non-static symbol.

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
index 04fdfa99b8bc..9be88fd05147 100644
--- a/drivers/base/node.c
+++ b/drivers/base/node.c
@@ -803,20 +803,14 @@  int register_mem_sect_under_node(struct memory_block *mem_blk, void *arg)
 
 /*
  * Unregister memory block device under all nodes that it spans.
+ * Has to be called with mem_sysfs_mutex held (due to unlinked_nodes).
  */
-int unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk)
+void unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk)
 {
-	NODEMASK_ALLOC(nodemask_t, unlinked_nodes, GFP_KERNEL);
 	unsigned long pfn, sect_start_pfn, sect_end_pfn;
+	static nodemask_t unlinked_nodes;
 
-	if (!mem_blk) {
-		NODEMASK_FREE(unlinked_nodes);
-		return -EFAULT;
-	}
-	if (!unlinked_nodes)
-		return -ENOMEM;
-	nodes_clear(*unlinked_nodes);
-
+	nodes_clear(unlinked_nodes);
 	sect_start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->start_section_nr);
 	sect_end_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->end_section_nr);
 	for (pfn = sect_start_pfn; pfn <= sect_end_pfn; pfn++) {
@@ -827,15 +821,13 @@  int unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk)
 			continue;
 		if (!node_online(nid))
 			continue;
-		if (node_test_and_set(nid, *unlinked_nodes))
+		if (node_test_and_set(nid, unlinked_nodes))
 			continue;
 		sysfs_remove_link(&node_devices[nid]->dev.kobj,
 			 kobject_name(&mem_blk->dev.kobj));
 		sysfs_remove_link(&mem_blk->dev.kobj,
 			 kobject_name(&node_devices[nid]->dev.kobj));
 	}
-	NODEMASK_FREE(unlinked_nodes);
-	return 0;
 }
 
 int link_mem_sections(int nid, unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
diff --git a/include/linux/node.h b/include/linux/node.h
index 02a29e71b175..548c226966a2 100644
--- a/include/linux/node.h
+++ b/include/linux/node.h
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@  extern int register_cpu_under_node(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int nid);
 extern int unregister_cpu_under_node(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int nid);
 extern int register_mem_sect_under_node(struct memory_block *mem_blk,
 						void *arg);
-extern int unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk);
+extern void unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk);
 
 extern int register_memory_node_under_compute_node(unsigned int mem_nid,
 						   unsigned int cpu_nid,
@@ -175,9 +175,8 @@  static inline int register_mem_sect_under_node(struct memory_block *mem_blk,
 {
 	return 0;
 }
-static inline int unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk)
+static inline void unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk)
 {
-	return 0;
 }
 
 static inline void register_hugetlbfs_with_node(node_registration_func_t reg,