From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> To: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, mhocko@suse.com, ira.weiny@intel.com, david@redhat.com, cai@lca.pw, logang@deltatee.com, james.morse@arm.com, cpandya@codeaurora.org, arunks@codeaurora.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, osalvador@suse.de, ard.biesheuvel@arm.com, steve.capper@arm.com Subject: [PATCH V6 1/3] mm/hotplug: Reorder memblock_[free|remove]() calls in try_remove_memory() Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:47:38 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1560917860-26169-2-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1560917860-26169-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> Memory hot remove uses get_nid_for_pfn() while tearing down linked sysfs entries between memory block and node. It first checks pfn validity with pfn_valid_within() before fetching nid. With CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE config (arm64 has this enabled) pfn_valid_within() calls pfn_valid(). pfn_valid() is an arch implementation on arm64 (CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID) which scans all mapped memblock regions with memblock_is_map_memory(). This creates a problem in memory hot remove path which has already removed given memory range from memory block with memblock_[remove|free] before arriving at unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(). Hence get_nid_for_pfn() returns -1 skipping subsequent sysfs_remove_link() calls leaving node <-> memory block sysfs entries as is. Subsequent memory add operation hits BUG_ON() because of existing sysfs entries. [ 62.007176] NUMA: Unknown node for memory at 0x680000000, assuming node 0 [ 62.052517] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 62.053211] kernel BUG at mm/memory_hotplug.c:1143! [ 62.053868] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP [ 62.054589] Modules linked in: [ 62.054999] CPU: 19 PID: 3275 Comm: bash Not tainted 5.1.0-rc2-00004-g28cea40b2683 #41 [ 62.056274] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) [ 62.057166] pstate: 40400005 (nZcv daif +PAN -UAO) [ 62.058083] pc : add_memory_resource+0x1cc/0x1d8 [ 62.058961] lr : add_memory_resource+0x10c/0x1d8 [ 62.059842] sp : ffff0000168b3ce0 [ 62.060477] x29: ffff0000168b3ce0 x28: ffff8005db546c00 [ 62.061501] x27: 0000000000000000 x26: 0000000000000000 [ 62.062509] x25: ffff0000111ef000 x24: ffff0000111ef5d0 [ 62.063520] x23: 0000000000000000 x22: 00000006bfffffff [ 62.064540] x21: 00000000ffffffef x20: 00000000006c0000 [ 62.065558] x19: 0000000000680000 x18: 0000000000000024 [ 62.066566] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 [ 62.067579] x15: ffffffffffffffff x14: ffff8005e412e890 [ 62.068588] x13: ffff8005d6b105d8 x12: 0000000000000000 [ 62.069610] x11: ffff8005d6b10490 x10: 0000000000000040 [ 62.070615] x9 : ffff8005e412e898 x8 : ffff8005e412e890 [ 62.071631] x7 : ffff8005d6b105d8 x6 : ffff8005db546c00 [ 62.072640] x5 : 0000000000000001 x4 : 0000000000000002 [ 62.073654] x3 : ffff8005d7049480 x2 : 0000000000000002 [ 62.074666] x1 : 0000000000000003 x0 : 00000000ffffffef [ 62.075685] Process bash (pid: 3275, stack limit = 0x00000000d754280f) [ 62.076930] Call trace: [ 62.077411] add_memory_resource+0x1cc/0x1d8 [ 62.078227] __add_memory+0x70/0xa8 [ 62.078901] probe_store+0xa4/0xc8 [ 62.079561] dev_attr_store+0x18/0x28 [ 62.080270] sysfs_kf_write+0x40/0x58 [ 62.080992] kernfs_fop_write+0xcc/0x1d8 [ 62.081744] __vfs_write+0x18/0x40 [ 62.082400] vfs_write+0xa4/0x1b0 [ 62.083037] ksys_write+0x5c/0xc0 [ 62.083681] __arm64_sys_write+0x18/0x20 [ 62.084432] el0_svc_handler+0x88/0x100 [ 62.085177] el0_svc+0x8/0xc Re-ordering memblock_[free|remove]() with arch_remove_memory() solves the problem on arm64 as pfn_valid() behaves correctly and returns positive as memblock for the address range still exists. arch_remove_memory() removes applicable memory sections from zone with __remove_pages() and tears down kernel linear mapping. Removing memblock regions afterwards is safe because there is no other memblock (bootmem) allocator user that late. So nobody is going to allocate from the removed range just to blow up later. Also nobody should be using the bootmem allocated range else we wouldn't allow to remove it. So reordering is indeed safe. Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> --- mm/memory_hotplug.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c index a88c5f3..cfa5fac 100644 --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c @@ -1831,13 +1831,13 @@ static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size) /* remove memmap entry */ firmware_map_remove(start, start + size, "System RAM"); - memblock_free(start, size); - memblock_remove(start, size); /* remove memory block devices before removing memory */ remove_memory_block_devices(start, size); arch_remove_memory(nid, start, size, NULL); + memblock_free(start, size); + memblock_remove(start, size); __release_memory_resource(start, size); try_offline_node(nid); -- 2.7.4
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> To: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, mhocko@suse.com, david@redhat.com, ira.weiny@intel.com, steve.capper@arm.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, cai@lca.pw, ard.biesheuvel@arm.com, cpandya@codeaurora.org, james.morse@arm.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, logang@deltatee.com, arunks@codeaurora.org, osalvador@suse.de Subject: [PATCH V6 1/3] mm/hotplug: Reorder memblock_[free|remove]() calls in try_remove_memory() Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:47:38 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1560917860-26169-2-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1560917860-26169-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> Memory hot remove uses get_nid_for_pfn() while tearing down linked sysfs entries between memory block and node. It first checks pfn validity with pfn_valid_within() before fetching nid. With CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE config (arm64 has this enabled) pfn_valid_within() calls pfn_valid(). pfn_valid() is an arch implementation on arm64 (CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID) which scans all mapped memblock regions with memblock_is_map_memory(). This creates a problem in memory hot remove path which has already removed given memory range from memory block with memblock_[remove|free] before arriving at unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(). Hence get_nid_for_pfn() returns -1 skipping subsequent sysfs_remove_link() calls leaving node <-> memory block sysfs entries as is. Subsequent memory add operation hits BUG_ON() because of existing sysfs entries. [ 62.007176] NUMA: Unknown node for memory at 0x680000000, assuming node 0 [ 62.052517] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 62.053211] kernel BUG at mm/memory_hotplug.c:1143! [ 62.053868] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP [ 62.054589] Modules linked in: [ 62.054999] CPU: 19 PID: 3275 Comm: bash Not tainted 5.1.0-rc2-00004-g28cea40b2683 #41 [ 62.056274] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) [ 62.057166] pstate: 40400005 (nZcv daif +PAN -UAO) [ 62.058083] pc : add_memory_resource+0x1cc/0x1d8 [ 62.058961] lr : add_memory_resource+0x10c/0x1d8 [ 62.059842] sp : ffff0000168b3ce0 [ 62.060477] x29: ffff0000168b3ce0 x28: ffff8005db546c00 [ 62.061501] x27: 0000000000000000 x26: 0000000000000000 [ 62.062509] x25: ffff0000111ef000 x24: ffff0000111ef5d0 [ 62.063520] x23: 0000000000000000 x22: 00000006bfffffff [ 62.064540] x21: 00000000ffffffef x20: 00000000006c0000 [ 62.065558] x19: 0000000000680000 x18: 0000000000000024 [ 62.066566] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 [ 62.067579] x15: ffffffffffffffff x14: ffff8005e412e890 [ 62.068588] x13: ffff8005d6b105d8 x12: 0000000000000000 [ 62.069610] x11: ffff8005d6b10490 x10: 0000000000000040 [ 62.070615] x9 : ffff8005e412e898 x8 : ffff8005e412e890 [ 62.071631] x7 : ffff8005d6b105d8 x6 : ffff8005db546c00 [ 62.072640] x5 : 0000000000000001 x4 : 0000000000000002 [ 62.073654] x3 : ffff8005d7049480 x2 : 0000000000000002 [ 62.074666] x1 : 0000000000000003 x0 : 00000000ffffffef [ 62.075685] Process bash (pid: 3275, stack limit = 0x00000000d754280f) [ 62.076930] Call trace: [ 62.077411] add_memory_resource+0x1cc/0x1d8 [ 62.078227] __add_memory+0x70/0xa8 [ 62.078901] probe_store+0xa4/0xc8 [ 62.079561] dev_attr_store+0x18/0x28 [ 62.080270] sysfs_kf_write+0x40/0x58 [ 62.080992] kernfs_fop_write+0xcc/0x1d8 [ 62.081744] __vfs_write+0x18/0x40 [ 62.082400] vfs_write+0xa4/0x1b0 [ 62.083037] ksys_write+0x5c/0xc0 [ 62.083681] __arm64_sys_write+0x18/0x20 [ 62.084432] el0_svc_handler+0x88/0x100 [ 62.085177] el0_svc+0x8/0xc Re-ordering memblock_[free|remove]() with arch_remove_memory() solves the problem on arm64 as pfn_valid() behaves correctly and returns positive as memblock for the address range still exists. arch_remove_memory() removes applicable memory sections from zone with __remove_pages() and tears down kernel linear mapping. Removing memblock regions afterwards is safe because there is no other memblock (bootmem) allocator user that late. So nobody is going to allocate from the removed range just to blow up later. Also nobody should be using the bootmem allocated range else we wouldn't allow to remove it. So reordering is indeed safe. Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> --- mm/memory_hotplug.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c index a88c5f3..cfa5fac 100644 --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c @@ -1831,13 +1831,13 @@ static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size) /* remove memmap entry */ firmware_map_remove(start, start + size, "System RAM"); - memblock_free(start, size); - memblock_remove(start, size); /* remove memory block devices before removing memory */ remove_memory_block_devices(start, size); arch_remove_memory(nid, start, size, NULL); + memblock_free(start, size); + memblock_remove(start, size); __release_memory_resource(start, size); try_offline_node(nid); -- 2.7.4 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-19 4:17 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-06-19 4:17 [PATCH V6 0/3] arm64/mm: Enable memory hot remove Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-19 4:17 ` Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-19 4:17 ` Anshuman Khandual [this message] 2019-06-19 4:17 ` [PATCH V6 1/3] mm/hotplug: Reorder memblock_[free|remove]() calls in try_remove_memory() Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-19 4:17 ` [PATCH V6 2/3] arm64/mm: Hold memory hotplug lock while walking for kernel page table dump Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-19 4:17 ` Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-19 4:17 ` [PATCH V6 3/3] arm64/mm: Enable memory hot remove Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-19 4:17 ` Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-21 12:53 ` Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-21 12:53 ` Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-21 14:35 ` Steve Capper 2019-06-21 14:35 ` Steve Capper 2019-06-21 14:35 ` Steve Capper 2019-06-24 3:12 ` Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-24 3:12 ` Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-24 3:12 ` Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-24 16:52 ` Mark Rutland 2019-06-24 16:52 ` Mark Rutland 2019-06-24 16:52 ` Mark Rutland 2019-06-25 5:27 ` Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-25 5:27 ` Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-25 5:27 ` Anshuman Khandual 2019-06-25 10:31 ` Mark Rutland 2019-06-25 10:31 ` Mark Rutland 2019-06-25 10:31 ` Mark Rutland
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=1560917860-26169-2-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com \ --to=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=ard.biesheuvel@arm.com \ --cc=arunks@codeaurora.org \ --cc=cai@lca.pw \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=cpandya@codeaurora.org \ --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \ --cc=david@redhat.com \ --cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \ --cc=james.morse@arm.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=logang@deltatee.com \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \ --cc=mhocko@suse.com \ --cc=osalvador@suse.de \ --cc=steve.capper@arm.com \ --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \ /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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.