[PATCH 0/2] fix kernel panic on memory hotplug

[PATCH 0/2] fix kernel panic on memory hotplug

[Yasuaki Ishimatsu]

When hot-adding memory after hot-removing memory, following call traces
are shown:

kernel BUG at arch/x86/mm/init_64.c:206!
...
 [<ffffffff815e0c80>] kernel_physical_mapping_init+0x1b2/0x1d2
 [<ffffffff815ced94>] init_memory_mapping+0x1d4/0x380
 [<ffffffff8104aebd>] arch_add_memory+0x3d/0xd0
 [<ffffffff815d03d9>] add_memory+0xb9/0x1b0
 [<ffffffff81352415>] acpi_memory_device_add+0x1af/0x28e
 [<ffffffff81325dc4>] acpi_bus_device_attach+0x8c/0xf0
 [<ffffffff813413b9>] acpi_ns_walk_namespace+0xc8/0x17f
 [<ffffffff81325d38>] ? acpi_bus_type_and_status+0xb7/0xb7
 [<ffffffff81325d38>] ? acpi_bus_type_and_status+0xb7/0xb7
 [<ffffffff813418ed>] acpi_walk_namespace+0x95/0xc5
 [<ffffffff81326b4c>] acpi_bus_scan+0x9a/0xc2
 [<ffffffff81326bff>] acpi_scan_bus_device_check+0x8b/0x12e
 [<ffffffff81326cb5>] acpi_scan_device_check+0x13/0x15
 [<ffffffff81320122>] acpi_os_execute_deferred+0x25/0x32
 [<ffffffff8107e02b>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x460
 [<ffffffff8107edfb>] worker_thread+0x11b/0x400
 [<ffffffff8107ece0>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
 [<ffffffff81085aef>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
 [<ffffffff81085a20>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
 [<ffffffff815fc76c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
 [<ffffffff81085a20>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140

The patch-sets fix the issue. The detailed descriptions are written
to the header of each patch.

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH 1/2] x86,mem-hotplug: pass sync_global_pgds() a correct argument in remove_pagetable()

[Yasuaki Ishimatsu]

remove_pagetable() gets start argument and passes the argument to
sync_global_pgds(). In this case, the argument must not be modified.
If the argument is modified and passed to sync_global_pgds(),
sync_global_pgds() does not correctly synchronize PGD to PGD entries
of all processes MM since synchronized range of memory [start, end]
is wrong.

Unfortunately the start argument is modified in remove_pagetable().
So this patch fixes the issue.

Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>

---
 arch/x86/mm/init_64.c | 9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
index df1a992..a5b245d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
@@ -975,19 +975,20 @@ static void __meminit
 remove_pagetable(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, bool direct)
 {
 	unsigned long next;
+	unsigned long addr;
 	pgd_t *pgd;
 	pud_t *pud;
 	bool pgd_changed = false;

-	for (; start < end; start = next) {
-		next = pgd_addr_end(start, end);
+	for (addr = start; addr < end; addr = next) {
+		next = pgd_addr_end(addr, end);

-		pgd = pgd_offset_k(start);
+		pgd = pgd_offset_k(addr);
 		if (!pgd_present(*pgd))
 			continue;

 		pud = (pud_t *)pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd);
-		remove_pud_table(pud, start, next, direct);
+		remove_pud_table(pud, addr, next, direct);
 		if (free_pud_table(pud, pgd))
 			pgd_changed = true;
 	}

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86,mem-hotplug: pass sync_global_pgds() a correct argument in remove_pagetable()

[Toshi Kani]

On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 15:37 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> remove_pagetable() gets start argument and passes the argument to
> sync_global_pgds(). In this case, the argument must not be modified.
> If the argument is modified and passed to sync_global_pgds(),
> sync_global_pgds() does not correctly synchronize PGD to PGD entries
> of all processes MM since synchronized range of memory [start, end]
> is wrong.
> 
> Unfortunately the start argument is modified in remove_pagetable().
> So this patch fixes the issue.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>

Acked-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>

Thanks,
-Toshi


--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86,mem-hotplug: pass sync_global_pgds() a correct argument in remove_pagetable()

[Yasuaki Ishimatsu]

(2014/06/21 3:27), Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 15:37 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
>> remove_pagetable() gets start argument and passes the argument to
>> sync_global_pgds(). In this case, the argument must not be modified.
>> If the argument is modified and passed to sync_global_pgds(),
>> sync_global_pgds() does not correctly synchronize PGD to PGD entries
>> of all processes MM since synchronized range of memory [start, end]
>> is wrong.
>>
>> Unfortunately the start argument is modified in remove_pagetable().
>> So this patch fixes the issue.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
>

> Acked-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>

Thank you for your review.

Thanks,
Yasuak Ishimatsu

>
> Thanks,
> -Toshi
>
>


--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH 2/2] x86,mem-hotplug: modify PGD entry when removing memory

[Yasuaki Ishimatsu]

When hot-adding/removing memory, sync_global_pgds() is called for
synchronizing PGD to PGD entries of all processes MM. But when
hot-removing memory, sync_global_pgds() does not work correctly.

At first, sync_global_pgds() checks whether target PGD is none or not.
And if PGD is none, the PGD is skipped. But when hot-removing memory,
PGD may be none since PGD may be cleared by free_pud_table(). So
when sync_global_pgds() is called after hot-removing memory,
sync_global_pgds() should not skip PGD even if the PGD is none.
And sync_global_pgds() must clear PGD entries of all processes MM.

Currently sync_global_pgds() does not clear PGD entries of all processes
MM when hot-removing memory. So when hot adding memory which is same memory
range as removed memory after hot-removing memory, following call traces
are shown:

kernel BUG at arch/x86/mm/init_64.c:206!
...
 [<ffffffff815e0c80>] kernel_physical_mapping_init+0x1b2/0x1d2
 [<ffffffff815ced94>] init_memory_mapping+0x1d4/0x380
 [<ffffffff8104aebd>] arch_add_memory+0x3d/0xd0
 [<ffffffff815d03d9>] add_memory+0xb9/0x1b0
 [<ffffffff81352415>] acpi_memory_device_add+0x1af/0x28e
 [<ffffffff81325dc4>] acpi_bus_device_attach+0x8c/0xf0
 [<ffffffff813413b9>] acpi_ns_walk_namespace+0xc8/0x17f
 [<ffffffff81325d38>] ? acpi_bus_type_and_status+0xb7/0xb7
 [<ffffffff81325d38>] ? acpi_bus_type_and_status+0xb7/0xb7
 [<ffffffff813418ed>] acpi_walk_namespace+0x95/0xc5
 [<ffffffff81326b4c>] acpi_bus_scan+0x9a/0xc2
 [<ffffffff81326bff>] acpi_scan_bus_device_check+0x8b/0x12e
 [<ffffffff81326cb5>] acpi_scan_device_check+0x13/0x15
 [<ffffffff81320122>] acpi_os_execute_deferred+0x25/0x32
 [<ffffffff8107e02b>] process_one_work+0x17b/0x460
 [<ffffffff8107edfb>] worker_thread+0x11b/0x400
 [<ffffffff8107ece0>] ? rescuer_thread+0x400/0x400
 [<ffffffff81085aef>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0
 [<ffffffff81085a20>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140
 [<ffffffff815fc76c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
 [<ffffffff81085a20>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140

This patch clears PGD entries of all processes MM when sync_global_pgds()
is called after hot-removing memory

Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>

---
 arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64.h |  3 ++-
 arch/x86/mm/fault.c               |  2 +-
 arch/x86/mm/init_64.c             | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64.h
index 5be9063..809abb3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64.h
@@ -115,7 +115,8 @@ static inline void native_pgd_clear(pgd_t *pgd)
 	native_set_pgd(pgd, native_make_pgd(0));
 }

-extern void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
+extern void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
+			     int removed);

 /*
  * Conversion functions: convert a page and protection to a page entry,
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
index 3664279..0193a32 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
@@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ out:

 void vmalloc_sync_all(void)
 {
-	sync_global_pgds(VMALLOC_START & PGDIR_MASK, VMALLOC_END);
+	sync_global_pgds(VMALLOC_START & PGDIR_MASK, VMALLOC_END, 0);
 }

 /*
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
index a5b245d..8f68032 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ __setup("noexec32=", nonx32_setup);
  * When memory was added/removed make sure all the processes MM have
  * suitable PGD entries in the local PGD level page.
  */
-void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
+void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, int removed)
 {
 	unsigned long address;

@@ -186,7 +186,12 @@ void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
 		const pgd_t *pgd_ref = pgd_offset_k(address);
 		struct page *page;

-		if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref))
+		/*
+		 * When it is called after memory hot remove, pgd_none()
+		 * returns true. In this case (removed == 1), we must clear
+		 * the PGD entries in the local PGD level page.
+		 */
+		if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !removed)
 			continue;

 		spin_lock(&pgd_lock);
@@ -199,12 +204,18 @@ void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
 			pgt_lock = &pgd_page_get_mm(page)->page_table_lock;
 			spin_lock(pgt_lock);

-			if (pgd_none(*pgd))
-				set_pgd(pgd, *pgd_ref);
-			else
+			if (!pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !pgd_none(*pgd))
 				BUG_ON(pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd)
 				       != pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd_ref));

+			if (removed) {
+				if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !pgd_none(*pgd))
+					pgd_clear(pgd);
+			} else {
+				if (pgd_none(*pgd))
+					set_pgd(pgd, *pgd_ref);
+			}
+
 			spin_unlock(pgt_lock);
 		}
 		spin_unlock(&pgd_lock);
@@ -633,7 +644,7 @@ kernel_physical_mapping_init(unsigned long start,
 	}

 	if (pgd_changed)
-		sync_global_pgds(addr, end - 1);
+		sync_global_pgds(addr, end - 1, 0);

 	__flush_tlb_all();

@@ -994,7 +1005,7 @@ remove_pagetable(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, bool direct)
 	}

 	if (pgd_changed)
-		sync_global_pgds(start, end - 1);
+		sync_global_pgds(start, end - 1, 1);

 	flush_tlb_all();
 }
@@ -1341,7 +1352,7 @@ int __meminit vmemmap_populate(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, int node)
 	else
 		err = vmemmap_populate_basepages(start, end, node);
 	if (!err)
-		sync_global_pgds(start, end - 1);
+		sync_global_pgds(start, end - 1, 0);
 	return err;
 }


--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86,mem-hotplug: modify PGD entry when removing memory

[Toshi Kani]

On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 15:38 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
 :
> @@ -186,7 +186,12 @@ void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>  		const pgd_t *pgd_ref = pgd_offset_k(address);
>  		struct page *page;
> 
> -		if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref))
> +		/*
> +		 * When it is called after memory hot remove, pgd_none()
> +		 * returns true. In this case (removed == 1), we must clear
> +		 * the PGD entries in the local PGD level page.
> +		 */
> +		if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !removed)
>  			continue;
> 
>  		spin_lock(&pgd_lock);
> @@ -199,12 +204,18 @@ void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>  			pgt_lock = &pgd_page_get_mm(page)->page_table_lock;
>  			spin_lock(pgt_lock);
> 
> -			if (pgd_none(*pgd))
> -				set_pgd(pgd, *pgd_ref);
> -			else
> +			if (!pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !pgd_none(*pgd))
>  				BUG_ON(pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd)
>  				       != pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd_ref));
> 
> +			if (removed) {

Shouldn't this condition be "else if"?

Thanks,
-Toshi

> +				if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !pgd_none(*pgd))
> +					pgd_clear(pgd);
> +			} else {
> +				if (pgd_none(*pgd))
> +					set_pgd(pgd, *pgd_ref);
> +			}
> +
>  			spin_unlock(pgt_lock);
>  		}


--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86,mem-hotplug: modify PGD entry when removing memory

[Yasuaki Ishimatsu]

(2014/06/21 3:30), Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 15:38 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
>   :
>> @@ -186,7 +186,12 @@ void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>>   		const pgd_t *pgd_ref = pgd_offset_k(address);
>>   		struct page *page;
>>
>> -		if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref))
>> +		/*
>> +		 * When it is called after memory hot remove, pgd_none()
>> +		 * returns true. In this case (removed == 1), we must clear
>> +		 * the PGD entries in the local PGD level page.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !removed)
>>   			continue;
>>
>>   		spin_lock(&pgd_lock);
>> @@ -199,12 +204,18 @@ void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>>   			pgt_lock = &pgd_page_get_mm(page)->page_table_lock;
>>   			spin_lock(pgt_lock);
>>
>> -			if (pgd_none(*pgd))
>> -				set_pgd(pgd, *pgd_ref);
>> -			else

>> +			if (!pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !pgd_none(*pgd))
>>   				BUG_ON(pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd)
>>   				       != pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd_ref));
>>
>> +			if (removed) {
>
> Shouldn't this condition be "else if"?

The first if sentence checks whether PGDs hit to BUG_ON. And the second
if sentence checks whether the function was called after hot-removing memory.
I think that the first if sentence and the second if sentence check different
things. So I think the condition should be "if" sentence.

Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu

>
> Thanks,
> -Toshi
>
>> +				if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !pgd_none(*pgd))
>> +					pgd_clear(pgd);
>> +			} else {
>> +				if (pgd_none(*pgd))
>> +					set_pgd(pgd, *pgd_ref);
>> +			}
>> +
>>   			spin_unlock(pgt_lock);
>>   		}
>
>


--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86,mem-hotplug: modify PGD entry when removing memory

[Toshi Kani]

On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 09:31 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> (2014/06/21 3:30), Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 15:38 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> >   :
> >> @@ -186,7 +186,12 @@ void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> >>   		const pgd_t *pgd_ref = pgd_offset_k(address);
> >>   		struct page *page;
> >>
> >> -		if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref))
> >> +		/*
> >> +		 * When it is called after memory hot remove, pgd_none()
> >> +		 * returns true. In this case (removed == 1), we must clear
> >> +		 * the PGD entries in the local PGD level page.
> >> +		 */
> >> +		if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !removed)
> >>   			continue;
> >>
> >>   		spin_lock(&pgd_lock);
> >> @@ -199,12 +204,18 @@ void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> >>   			pgt_lock = &pgd_page_get_mm(page)->page_table_lock;
> >>   			spin_lock(pgt_lock);
> >>
> >> -			if (pgd_none(*pgd))
> >> -				set_pgd(pgd, *pgd_ref);
> >> -			else
> 
> >> +			if (!pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !pgd_none(*pgd))
> >>   				BUG_ON(pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd)
> >>   				       != pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd_ref));
> >>
> >> +			if (removed) {
> >
> > Shouldn't this condition be "else if"?
> 
> The first if sentence checks whether PGDs hit to BUG_ON. And the second
> if sentence checks whether the function was called after hot-removing memory.
> I think that the first if sentence and the second if sentence check different
> things. So I think the condition should be "if" sentence.

When the 1st if sentence is true, you have no additional operation and
the 2nd if sentence is redundant. But I agree that the two ifs can be
logically separated. So:

Acked-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>

Thanks,
-Toshi

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86,mem-hotplug: modify PGD entry when removing memory

[Yasuaki Ishimatsu]

(2014/06/25 0:12), Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 09:31 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
>> (2014/06/21 3:30), Toshi Kani wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 15:38 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
>>>    :
>>>> @@ -186,7 +186,12 @@ void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>>>>    		const pgd_t *pgd_ref = pgd_offset_k(address);
>>>>    		struct page *page;
>>>>
>>>> -		if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref))
>>>> +		/*
>>>> +		 * When it is called after memory hot remove, pgd_none()
>>>> +		 * returns true. In this case (removed == 1), we must clear
>>>> +		 * the PGD entries in the local PGD level page.
>>>> +		 */
>>>> +		if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !removed)
>>>>    			continue;
>>>>
>>>>    		spin_lock(&pgd_lock);
>>>> @@ -199,12 +204,18 @@ void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>>>>    			pgt_lock = &pgd_page_get_mm(page)->page_table_lock;
>>>>    			spin_lock(pgt_lock);
>>>>
>>>> -			if (pgd_none(*pgd))
>>>> -				set_pgd(pgd, *pgd_ref);
>>>> -			else
>>
>>>> +			if (!pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !pgd_none(*pgd))
>>>>    				BUG_ON(pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd)
>>>>    				       != pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd_ref));
>>>>
>>>> +			if (removed) {
>>>
>>> Shouldn't this condition be "else if"?
>>
>> The first if sentence checks whether PGDs hit to BUG_ON. And the second
>> if sentence checks whether the function was called after hot-removing memory.
>> I think that the first if sentence and the second if sentence check different
>> things. So I think the condition should be "if" sentence.
>
> When the 1st if sentence is true, you have no additional operation and
> the 2nd if sentence is redundant. But I agree that the two ifs can be
> logically separated. So:
>

> Acked-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>

Thank you for your review.

Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu

>
> Thanks,
> -Toshi
>


--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>