From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f46.google.com (mail-ej1-f46.google.com [209.85.218.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75C1B40BF5; Mon, 10 Mar 2025 07:56:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.46 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741593392; cv=none; b=jQfjfsKKj19fSOiwfuVmQFEPDKHFzm18BPPjUfO7QTDpN22kn0NDPJXsCOr72PDCbq4bB3uqATLGEIexR+QyDCuMcBBiVrhlOYUthdBkBWS1fozAnLJsRXMS9uGR6OHUKYGMylYZh7UG8pYbbGaL4vhSwczeZWd2WdW17GIYhpw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741593392; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VGCbjL1HdMAREmVoEIFT6XGS9lZ7z8a47y+hv6zkmR8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fxGeAbuvhGVR5ESuLqqJnIOEIF0Heak96eqBCzowuTa9ku7n1CfrmJfzHZ9lHF9JkbaA3tD+hqN2Ls+skwCEjy9Kez1isMZeonfz5A/0SJWBof+W4Yv7z1PFs9DS4PW+1ndXEdAu98rMJMvs56xqOploJ6ntGjmWVg+fyX+dXow= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=cbXzM2Zz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.46 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="cbXzM2Zz" Received: by mail-ej1-f46.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-ac298c8fa50so132320266b.1; Mon, 10 Mar 2025 00:56:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1741593389; x=1742198189; darn=vger.kernel.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=FJwceBGDF2wkWgWu1pdO+uwWw+syZobUsImQSfkS6Tw=; b=cbXzM2Zzbip0vgDuX1cFpHSDprfRv2FURvUfC2o2dE2aOO2WLaaiU5Yek0DXn/625l A4KwqnYqu5kj5RUhLU6Uf6fRVcIzAupQ0zeirqucpjZSW8r1//bDGxzKEjtf9zWqViNP E6jniTHtCBKpUgm9iGMWhA620izVc6eG2Vw0FaRTIZ+QA+YWZhHoA3LXfww5ahK550+I +XVlQuYfQP9u8VvcEQx+ZFJ+H53p3I+noFuzORAKh4He9MbxpzDXktDi47hf5AZuhPRq 85wlUrR/jz/V2F2993Wjg05/2P8zSU14L6ziRuMkW+7bzCDvQtYzL0jqs7BftDzj6Oqf DWGw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1741593389; x=1742198189; 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=FJwceBGDF2wkWgWu1pdO+uwWw+syZobUsImQSfkS6Tw=; b=TEBx05Ts7oxbk2shci1BmjiHaIzASD0xIPAoskgBOX88WWZmPr7bEDVubgCJaqKLbV eUJFj0AY7mZRe0haRYSGmu+3fWeRg0f1GPYNpeSGJL5YVojaVurQ7H3fTbYiy0J2QVef WPIJOLKT2fT5Z2YQO98lDHCiNExBYZYkmVPJfCvH2cEI43KWpbOHjNJGWibbnjuf9Tsh 1p+SEl/A61kAtPHbpNW2T+ghn+3XnsXRfFhQMdLVa2woSG6qtwrq69klhS2x/54btrNf yTqXPgFAAPsJiXL1xEViyMWQpUwo0t1mKRoNA8o5z5BoG/ZGZ0j7ECYEKbIC6y3e3VXC XWJQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU2NCjHB02Uvl71Bx9i/JnOO9sossf/SnYCh4fMXB9R+FW4rSZMZT7bHQttXI4LoHQn3kdE8vDsErQt@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCWb1EOvtGdIfRiJ4k82XXc3JDy70twcDaY9R42rbdKG136tlmlcshdvUdkSnh/W5uBpFA8m27AmzHzL@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCXUlzR+Kf3uerjBGQyHLhfrvrERRrilEzFVOnVFrtXyYfzpuY0kRQhHHEVt21uiFjS5ZrIpAq5pnWFO8Av4@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzCcDB9STjT8eLEEWFWm8FUADeSxVILr3G7JzGb8qykipZrHKbJ XG4C/YraknHMvyO4u1BveNm6KPSfS2E5JEKxqhXq+nTy0Ni7Cv/f X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvKSomL8i3CGj3zKwN+QMMpJ3n72WQDvI23oU8yU3h8UV6xVArFewSlDXSFJKp Dp7W7vSObREG6yGqRF2/kPGQsOUZHJaEvsYEdmdLbC0bzxE2gIdEoZosmX2DC/gPfGMufHzbueB K0OARaIRxAYpGClB8ibR7xJaSYwVF1TxfnwCpMr5oUVGazIeA2b5/0KbFJSApE+yTtPsGXcdI6P KZc6MS4rJXYrsG3gC3RzK2OE89reeJ+fLIVFPXpIeLifNr0nHHG0TvY8A20CR9ESjCbvsl1ZZ91 ZRwJnSS0Q8KoMx2a2Cl0gewg2tCmE1A8zbNhqDz6btZa X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEQ2uBHwcOdkgr7aGqLMWG+rbjuDIjMsdHGAG+hCMaeoXtOhIX4RmiolWfrWI8fpuA/uaZyUw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:268a:b0:5e0:49e4:2180 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5e5e24688d1mr34122496a12.25.1741593388499; Mon, 10 Mar 2025 00:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([185.92.221.13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a640c23a62f3a-ac279b3e463sm371805666b.72.2025.03.10.00.56.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 10 Mar 2025 00:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 07:56:27 +0000 From: Wei Yang To: Wei Yang Cc: Mike Rapoport , 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: <20250310075627.5hettrn2j2ien5bj@master> Reply-To: Wei Yang References: <20250206132754.2596694-1-rppt@kernel.org> <20250206132754.2596694-3-rppt@kernel.org> <20250218155004.n53fcuj2lrl5rxll@master> <20250224013131.fzz552bn7fs64umq@master> <20250226020915.ytxusrrl7rv4g64l@master> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250226020915.ytxusrrl7rv4g64l@master> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 02:09:15AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote: >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. > Hi, Mike Do you think my understanding is reasonable? -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me