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 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F20F6C021BF for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 02:11:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:Reply-To:List-Subscribe: List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=jNDX0bDy82gk9QmnrN58DpzxWTxMxMF4PEgthtYO/y8=; b=uOF+UU0kwOC7dEmYmDyC/PTMgq OJ5rkWQ4WrYtASR5YIQi4/cbsY38AznqpOqqg/xLlPvkxtrj08EvLYEC3JoNY0aX6ybS6QPKoyVhY pjxcRIvqmYoZ6j5BsQ7N4JdlAaIPTHfeMB63gq5WeTFIb//KkGOQss3jNzBf61QvwnSW1vGF498/h TTRDeuy1MSR15ZBFU0aKvTXOcA+DuJu95IjfCylBQbBBLuTJst1jH7WIdczw9zgww5/EApSgQDYG5 fYjfCOVrUFHuUJ+sVqUGpWs8BkznybabTFO0/xot5ue3jVZmEEGxyCjV8s3PO43g0zg++/9HooUvf 40mLMwRQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tn6sw-000000027NA-2jHY; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 02:10:54 +0000 Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tn6rP-0000000275g-1DPd; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 02:09:20 +0000 Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5e04f87584dso9519628a12.3; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:09:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1740535757; x=1741140557; darn=lists.infradead.org; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=jNDX0bDy82gk9QmnrN58DpzxWTxMxMF4PEgthtYO/y8=; b=OJlGHB4txTZyBn9B08S2SNKkTqiYhUYcAu0KEKm7/qZ1VLL+BNzUVBj3fYiuC3v92x eF6snukAOXJ7Qa8XU9piwiVKuFwKAd2nfmJoHqWyXhoYiLpOwZMqm9J0OJCOBEYMNsJt wQ4E//W9mFwm9isl+uKjgIud6IdrNb+ZpdtAujRU+gr1tX7H6+IlfbHXnqAXiugsMLes mzlKm5i8U0Y4Y53lkPxHsuD/p4DIGwkrZYWmZ/YPdPbaA++DfwbEBV0xX2NZCEqA6uhz 256tZrxJU57bIP2+I2aVuf+/8/APMmzZuXk0dvcqa5NxO+iGCFQiw9XIc0e3qYPqHEsA yTXw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740535757; x=1741140557; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jNDX0bDy82gk9QmnrN58DpzxWTxMxMF4PEgthtYO/y8=; b=OY6VFB2ZcJ/OTbsVMUQM4lS3Op3Tsoo0yLUUWLg1rlFE5Ou5CyD9Zc96dOScq0DhrM wB4Z/M2KzhAceVs6POaVF9pZCCZoeIgP+bwdHhrmUx8Ej71rVAPsJKPpaKgFpN1rtZ6M HjW1wNF3HZH44ehcNMfcBXpcIC+wfg6/x4MjYmyF9QCx0wC37D8VWtNlxxxptm9LOW87 NpCxA6Q9QyGa3UY/5FlTgNP3lwmMcKA2mNnbbJRUhpTDcq9wdz3xkD7ZU6J8IlPS9w9m 0bzZuhWthsx2LktT7Eo4xuf/xc1ARmCjg6Gvxc2EvJVXnWIU5b3ZA3Rsp/th64DjGWo8 LqQg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWAtS+504ftqiySTKQt4tvCYHIHRFaMEBUddUgdXX8okFITJ7FDkXF6er6q4fImQfIhbttOyQ==@lists.infradead.org, AJvYcCWOkjNzEE/5eCWNDJ1sdMfpAEKedXnY4TRAWzbt1RhCMymWRivUmDdJRHLfaw4M7dspYoaAoRQ1pkJW0oabv/RLjg==@lists.infradead.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyElOBf73P03Wp5ojdxCqyCXXsPmfft5CyU/uwQDtBp1AOCSGUL BYxWt59iQ4dN211gk/SJy72r7ejHKjRpUYa12FHUTkCvb9txssuB X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsCczz+mhw1QRACzv+gGSTvcOEdZyR9HwLDFYALu8PnnjqZpD3IRLeId9Y98fM tJQW9KF7f0EVvj6gkS57Z8XEKhZNjDGSYjP8fc0WIvF7C54wOI0NjPrDjx4DxhFNcyIVjkgOJby qmxaENC8jFGxpIEv8ZLH+VPSJsaRpQ632WuQqTfAxw/Goc8MhTdP1lslWEhskByGz86bAVuGMAk cwgaqZBvbSZiXvxpyuPJz+3D7lYKIcJ9CNLqlVUhj+d0d0IS5I6CrJPPn8B+0QBRpflNP0k7bqf cV8j5UC8+ZbskupN5UVeUV0QqA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGRtYD7rWXN/Sb7N5YCwL4iwg6Gy2cLXak4su8dMR+fikHn63505aewDuiYmopReDoTjLpqLQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:5508:b0:5dc:cc02:5d25 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5e4a0d71d15mr1703278a12.11.1740535757056; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:09:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([185.92.221.13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5e461f3e675sm1976282a12.72.2025.02.25.18.09.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:09:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 02:09:15 +0000 From: Wei Yang To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Wei Yang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Graf , Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Anthony Yznaga , Arnd Bergmann , Ashish Kalra , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Borislav Petkov , Catalin Marinas , Dave Hansen , David Woodhouse , Eric Biederman , Ingo Molnar , James Gowans , Jonathan Corbet , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Mark Rutland , Paolo Bonzini , Pasha Tatashin , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Pratyush Yadav , Rob Herring , Rob Herring , Saravana Kannan , Stanislav Kinsburskii , Steven Rostedt , Thomas Gleixner , Tom Lendacky , Usama Arif , Will Deacon , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/14] memblock: add MEMBLOCK_RSRV_KERN flag Message-ID: <20250226020915.ytxusrrl7rv4g64l@master> References: <20250206132754.2596694-1-rppt@kernel.org> <20250206132754.2596694-3-rppt@kernel.org> <20250218155004.n53fcuj2lrl5rxll@master> <20250224013131.fzz552bn7fs64umq@master> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20250225_180919_329523_AA592D8A X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 33.23 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Wei Yang Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 09:46:28AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: >On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 01:31:31AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 09:24:31AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: >> >Hi, >> > >> >On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 03:50:04PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 03:27:42PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: >> >> >From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" >> >> > >> >> >to denote areas that were reserved for kernel use either directly with >> >> >memblock_reserve_kern() or via memblock allocations. >> >> > >> >> >Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) >> >> >--- >> >> > include/linux/memblock.h | 16 +++++++++++++++- >> >> > mm/memblock.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- >> >> > 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> > >> >> >diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h >> >> >index e79eb6ac516f..65e274550f5d 100644 >> >> >--- a/include/linux/memblock.h >> >> >+++ b/include/linux/memblock.h >> >> >@@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ enum memblock_flags { >> >> > MEMBLOCK_NOMAP = 0x4, /* don't add to kernel direct mapping */ >> >> > MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED = 0x8, /* always detected via a driver */ >> >> > MEMBLOCK_RSRV_NOINIT = 0x10, /* don't initialize struct pages */ >> >> >+ MEMBLOCK_RSRV_KERN = 0x20, /* memory reserved for kernel use */ >> >> >> >> Above memblock_flags, there are comments on explaining those flags. >> >> >> >> Seems we miss it for MEMBLOCK_RSRV_KERN. >> > >> >Right, thanks! >> > >> >> > >> >> > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_PHYS_MAP >> >> >@@ -1459,14 +1460,14 @@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size, >> >> > again: >> >> > found = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, start, end, nid, >> >> > flags); >> >> >- if (found && !memblock_reserve(found, size)) >> >> >+ if (found && !__memblock_reserve(found, size, nid, MEMBLOCK_RSRV_KERN)) >> >> >> >> Maybe we could use memblock_reserve_kern() directly. If my understanding is >> >> correct, the reserved region's nid is not used. >> > >> >We use nid of reserved regions in reserve_bootmem_region() (commit >> >61167ad5fecd ("mm: pass nid to reserve_bootmem_region()")) but KHO needs to >> >know the distribution of reserved memory among the nodes before >> >memmap_init_reserved_pages(). >> > >> >> BTW, one question here. How we handle concurrent memblock allocation? If two >> >> threads find the same available range and do the reservation, it seems to be a >> >> problem to me. Or I missed something? >> > >> >memblock allocations end before smp_init(), there is no possible concurrency. >> > >> >> Thanks, I still have one question here. >> >> Below is a simplified call flow. >> >> mm_core_init() >> mem_init() >> memblock_free_all() >> free_low_memory_core_early() >> memmap_init_reserved_pages() >> memblock_set_node(..., memblock.reserved, ) --- (1) >> __free_memory_core() >> kmem_cache_init() >> slab_state = UP; --- (2) >> >> And memblock_allloc_range_nid() is not supposed to be called after >> slab_is_available(). Even someone do dose it, it will get memory from slab >> instead of reserve region in memblock. >> >> From the above call flow and background, there are three cases when >> memblock_alloc_range_nid() would be called: >> >> * If it is called before (1), memblock.reserved's nid would be adjusted correctly. >> * If it is called after (2), we don't touch memblock.reserved. >> * If it happens between (1) and (2), it looks would break the consistency of >> nid information in memblock.reserved. Because when we use >> memblock_reserve_kern(), NUMA_NO_NODE would be stored in region. >> >> So my question is if the third case happens, would it introduce a bug? If it >> won't happen, seems we don't need to specify the nid here? > >We don't really care about proper assignment of nodes between (1) and (2) >from one side and the third case does not happen on the other side. Nothing >should call membloc_alloc() after memblock_free_all(). > My point is if no one would call memblock_alloc() after memblock_free_all(), which set nid in memblock.reserved properly, it seems not necessary to do __memblock_reserve() with exact nid during memblock_alloc()? As you did __memblock_reserve(found, size, nid, MEMBLOCK_RSRV_KERN) in this patch. >But it's easy to make the window between (1) and (2) disappear by replacing >checks for slab_is_available() in memblock with a variable local to >memblock. > >> -- >> Wei Yang >> Help you, Help me > >-- >Sincerely yours, >Mike. -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me