From: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
rientjes@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memory hotplug: Check if pages are correctly reserved on a per-section basis
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:44:06 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E945636.7000707@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111011072406.GA2503@suse.de>
On 10/11/2011 02:27 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:28:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:24:03 -0700
>> Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 03:00:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:11:19 +0100
>>>> Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is expected that memory being brought online is PageReserved
>>>>> similar to what happens when the page allocator is being brought up.
>>>>> Memory is onlined in "memory blocks" which consist of one or more
>>>>> sections. Unfortunately, the code that verifies PageReserved is
>>>>> currently assuming that the memmap backing all these pages is virtually
>>>>> contiguous which is only the case when CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP is set.
>>>>> As a result, memory hot-add is failing on !VMEMMAP configurations
>>>>> with the message;
>>>>>
>>>>> kernel: section number XXX page number 256 not reserved, was it already online?
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch updates the PageReserved check to lookup struct page once
>>>>> per section to guarantee the correct struct page is being checked.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nathan's earlier version of this patch is already in linux-next, via
>>>> Greg. We should drop the old version and get the new one merged
>>>> instead.
>>>
>>> Ok, care to send me what exactly needs to be reverted and what needs to
>>> be added?
>>
>> Drop
>>
>> commit 54f23eb7ba7619de85d8edca6e5336bc33072dbd
>> Author: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@austin.ibm.com>
>> Date: Mon Sep 26 10:22:33 2011 -0500
>>
>> memory hotplug: Correct page reservation checking
>>
>> and replace it with start-of-this-thread.
>>
>> That's assuming that Mel's update passes Nathan's review and testing :)
>
> It passed review and testing with IBM based on a SUSE bug. I thought
> Nathan's patch had been lost as it was posted to linuxppc-dev instead
> of linux-mm. This rework was to improve the changelog and readability.
>
> David correctly pointed out a bug that passed testing because it was
> still checking one page per section. As long as that page was reserved,
> memory hot-add would go ahead. Here is a corrected version.
>
Previous patch passed testing, working on testing Mel's updated patch...
-Nathan
> Thanks
>
> ==== CUT HERE ====
> mm: memory hotplug: Check if pages are correctly reserved on a per-section basis
>
> It is expected that memory being brought online is PageReserved
> similar to what happens when the page allocator is being brought up.
> Memory is onlined in "memory blocks" which consist of one or more
> sections. Unfortunately, the code that verifies PageReserved is
> currently assuming that the memmap backing all these pages is virtually
> contiguous which is only the case when CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP is set.
> As a result, memory hot-add is failing on those configurations with
> the message;
>
> kernel: section number XXX page number 256 not reserved, was it already online?
>
> This patch updates the PageReserved check to lookup struct page once
> per section to guarantee the correct struct page is being checked.
>
> [Check pages within sections properly: rientjes@google.com]
> [original patch by: nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> ---
> drivers/base/memory.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
> index 2840ed4..ffb69cd 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
> @@ -224,13 +224,48 @@ int memory_isolate_notify(unsigned long val, void *v)
> }
>
> /*
> + * The probe routines leave the pages reserved, just as the bootmem code does.
> + * Make sure they're still that way.
> + */
> +static bool pages_correctly_reserved(unsigned long start_pfn,
> + unsigned long nr_pages)
> +{
> + int i, j;
> + struct page *page;
> + unsigned long pfn = start_pfn;
> +
> + /*
> + * memmap between sections is not contiguous except with
> + * SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP. We lookup the page once per section
> + * and assume memmap is contiguous within each section
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < sections_per_block; i++, pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!pfn_valid(pfn)))
> + return false;
> + page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> +
> + for (j = 0; j < PAGES_PER_SECTION; j++) {
> + if (PageReserved(page + j))
> + continue;
> +
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "section number %ld page number %d "
> + "not reserved, was it already online?\n",
> + pfn_to_section_nr(pfn), j);
> +
> + return false;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> * MEMORY_HOTPLUG depends on SPARSEMEM in mm/Kconfig, so it is
> * OK to have direct references to sparsemem variables in here.
> */
> static int
> memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action)
> {
> - int i;
> unsigned long start_pfn, start_paddr;
> unsigned long nr_pages = PAGES_PER_SECTION * sections_per_block;
> struct page *first_page;
> @@ -238,26 +273,13 @@ memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action)
>
> first_page = pfn_to_page(phys_index << PFN_SECTION_SHIFT);
>
> - /*
> - * The probe routines leave the pages reserved, just
> - * as the bootmem code does. Make sure they're still
> - * that way.
> - */
> - if (action == MEM_ONLINE) {
> - for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
> - if (PageReserved(first_page+i))
> - continue;
> -
> - printk(KERN_WARNING "section number %ld page number %d "
> - "not reserved, was it already online?\n",
> - phys_index, i);
> - return -EBUSY;
> - }
> - }
> -
> switch (action) {
> case MEM_ONLINE:
> start_pfn = page_to_pfn(first_page);
> +
> + if (!pages_correctly_reserved(start_pfn, nr_pages))
> + return -EBUSY;
> +
> ret = online_pages(start_pfn, nr_pages);
> break;
> case MEM_OFFLINE:
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
rientjes@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memory hotplug: Check if pages are correctly reserved on a per-section basis
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:44:06 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E945636.7000707@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111011072406.GA2503@suse.de>
On 10/11/2011 02:27 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:28:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:24:03 -0700
>> Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 03:00:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:11:19 +0100
>>>> Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is expected that memory being brought online is PageReserved
>>>>> similar to what happens when the page allocator is being brought up.
>>>>> Memory is onlined in "memory blocks" which consist of one or more
>>>>> sections. Unfortunately, the code that verifies PageReserved is
>>>>> currently assuming that the memmap backing all these pages is virtually
>>>>> contiguous which is only the case when CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP is set.
>>>>> As a result, memory hot-add is failing on !VMEMMAP configurations
>>>>> with the message;
>>>>>
>>>>> kernel: section number XXX page number 256 not reserved, was it already online?
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch updates the PageReserved check to lookup struct page once
>>>>> per section to guarantee the correct struct page is being checked.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nathan's earlier version of this patch is already in linux-next, via
>>>> Greg. We should drop the old version and get the new one merged
>>>> instead.
>>>
>>> Ok, care to send me what exactly needs to be reverted and what needs to
>>> be added?
>>
>> Drop
>>
>> commit 54f23eb7ba7619de85d8edca6e5336bc33072dbd
>> Author: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@austin.ibm.com>
>> Date: Mon Sep 26 10:22:33 2011 -0500
>>
>> memory hotplug: Correct page reservation checking
>>
>> and replace it with start-of-this-thread.
>>
>> That's assuming that Mel's update passes Nathan's review and testing :)
>
> It passed review and testing with IBM based on a SUSE bug. I thought
> Nathan's patch had been lost as it was posted to linuxppc-dev instead
> of linux-mm. This rework was to improve the changelog and readability.
>
> David correctly pointed out a bug that passed testing because it was
> still checking one page per section. As long as that page was reserved,
> memory hot-add would go ahead. Here is a corrected version.
>
Previous patch passed testing, working on testing Mel's updated patch...
-Nathan
> Thanks
>
> ==== CUT HERE ====
> mm: memory hotplug: Check if pages are correctly reserved on a per-section basis
>
> It is expected that memory being brought online is PageReserved
> similar to what happens when the page allocator is being brought up.
> Memory is onlined in "memory blocks" which consist of one or more
> sections. Unfortunately, the code that verifies PageReserved is
> currently assuming that the memmap backing all these pages is virtually
> contiguous which is only the case when CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP is set.
> As a result, memory hot-add is failing on those configurations with
> the message;
>
> kernel: section number XXX page number 256 not reserved, was it already online?
>
> This patch updates the PageReserved check to lookup struct page once
> per section to guarantee the correct struct page is being checked.
>
> [Check pages within sections properly: rientjes@google.com]
> [original patch by: nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> ---
> drivers/base/memory.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
> index 2840ed4..ffb69cd 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
> @@ -224,13 +224,48 @@ int memory_isolate_notify(unsigned long val, void *v)
> }
>
> /*
> + * The probe routines leave the pages reserved, just as the bootmem code does.
> + * Make sure they're still that way.
> + */
> +static bool pages_correctly_reserved(unsigned long start_pfn,
> + unsigned long nr_pages)
> +{
> + int i, j;
> + struct page *page;
> + unsigned long pfn = start_pfn;
> +
> + /*
> + * memmap between sections is not contiguous except with
> + * SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP. We lookup the page once per section
> + * and assume memmap is contiguous within each section
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < sections_per_block; i++, pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!pfn_valid(pfn)))
> + return false;
> + page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> +
> + for (j = 0; j < PAGES_PER_SECTION; j++) {
> + if (PageReserved(page + j))
> + continue;
> +
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "section number %ld page number %d "
> + "not reserved, was it already online?\n",
> + pfn_to_section_nr(pfn), j);
> +
> + return false;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> * MEMORY_HOTPLUG depends on SPARSEMEM in mm/Kconfig, so it is
> * OK to have direct references to sparsemem variables in here.
> */
> static int
> memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action)
> {
> - int i;
> unsigned long start_pfn, start_paddr;
> unsigned long nr_pages = PAGES_PER_SECTION * sections_per_block;
> struct page *first_page;
> @@ -238,26 +273,13 @@ memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action)
>
> first_page = pfn_to_page(phys_index << PFN_SECTION_SHIFT);
>
> - /*
> - * The probe routines leave the pages reserved, just
> - * as the bootmem code does. Make sure they're still
> - * that way.
> - */
> - if (action == MEM_ONLINE) {
> - for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
> - if (PageReserved(first_page+i))
> - continue;
> -
> - printk(KERN_WARNING "section number %ld page number %d "
> - "not reserved, was it already online?\n",
> - phys_index, i);
> - return -EBUSY;
> - }
> - }
> -
> switch (action) {
> case MEM_ONLINE:
> start_pfn = page_to_pfn(first_page);
> +
> + if (!pages_correctly_reserved(start_pfn, nr_pages))
> + return -EBUSY;
> +
> ret = online_pages(start_pfn, nr_pages);
> break;
> case MEM_OFFLINE:
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-11 14:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-10 7:11 [PATCH] mm: memory hotplug: Check if pages are correctly reserved on a per-section basis Mel Gorman
2011-10-10 7:11 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-10 22:00 ` Andrew Morton
2011-10-10 22:00 ` Andrew Morton
2011-10-10 23:24 ` Greg KH
2011-10-10 23:24 ` Greg KH
2011-10-10 23:28 ` Andrew Morton
2011-10-10 23:28 ` Andrew Morton
2011-10-10 23:35 ` Greg KH
2011-10-10 23:35 ` Greg KH
2011-10-10 23:41 ` Andrew Morton
2011-10-10 23:41 ` Andrew Morton
2011-10-11 4:26 ` David Rientjes
2011-10-11 4:26 ` David Rientjes
2011-10-11 7:27 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-11 7:27 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-11 14:44 ` Nathan Fontenot [this message]
2011-10-11 14:44 ` Nathan Fontenot
2011-10-12 1:16 ` IBM
2011-10-12 1:16 ` IBM
2011-10-17 14:38 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-17 14:38 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-18 0:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-10-18 0:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-10-20 5:19 ` David Rientjes
2011-10-20 5:19 ` David Rientjes
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=4E945636.7000707@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=rientjes@google.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: link
Be 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.