public inbox for linux-mm@kvack.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
	rafael@kernel.org, nathanl@linux.ibm.com, cheloha@linux.ibm.com,
	stable@vger.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't rely on system state to detect hot-plug operations
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 14:36:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ac9d3ea9-3735-8d38-e2d3-4eb69d5471b1@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <65b2680d-b02e-16c9-66a4-e38b9d3fa52b@redhat.com>

Le 10/09/2020 à 14:00, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
> On 10.09.20 13:35, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> Le 10/09/2020 à 13:12, Michal Hocko a écrit :
>>> On Thu 10-09-20 09:51:39, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>> Le 10/09/2020 à 09:23, Michal Hocko a écrit :
>>>>> On Wed 09-09-20 18:07:15, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>>>> Le 09/09/2020 à 12:59, Michal Hocko a écrit :
>>>>>>> On Wed 09-09-20 11:21:58, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> For the point a, using the enum allows to know in
>>>>>>>> register_mem_sect_under_node() if the link operation is due to a hotplug
>>>>>>>> operation or done at boot time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but let me repeat. We have a mess here and different paths check
>>>>>>> for the very same condition by different ways. We need to unify those.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are you suggesting to unify these checks (using a MP_* enum as
>>>>>> suggested by David, something else)?
>>>>>
>>>>> We do have system_state check spread at different places. I would use
>>>>> this one and wrap it behind a helper. Or have I missed any reason why
>>>>> that wouldn't work for this case?
>>>>
>>>> That would not work in that case because memory can be hot-added at the
>>>> SYSTEM_SCHEDULING system state and the regular memory is also registered at
>>>> that system state too. So system state is not enough to discriminate between
>>>> the both.
>>>
>>> If that is really the case all other places need a fix as well.
>>> Btw. could you be more specific about memory hotplug during early boot?
>>> How that happens? I am only aware of https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200818110046.6664-1-osalvador@suse.de
>>> and that doesn't happen as early as SYSTEM_SCHEDULING.
>>
>> That points has been raised by David, quoting him here:
>>
>>> IIRC, ACPI can hotadd memory while SCHEDULING, this patch would break that.
>>>
>>> Ccing Oscar, I think he mentioned recently that this is the case with ACPI.
>>
>> Oscar told that he need to investigate further on that.
>>
>> On my side I can't get these ACPI "early" hot-plug operations to happen so I
>> can't check that.
>>
>> If this is clear that ACPI memory hotplug doesn't happen at SYSTEM_SCHEDULING,
>> the patch I proposed at first is enough to fix the issue.
>>
> 
> Booting a qemu guest with 4 coldplugged DIMMs gives me:
> 
> :/root# dmesg | grep link_mem
> [    0.302247] link_mem_sections() during 1
> [    0.445086] link_mem_sections() during 1
> [    0.445766] link_mem_sections() during 1
> [    0.446749] link_mem_sections() during 1
> [    0.447746] link_mem_sections() during 1
> 
> So AFAICs everything happens during SYSTEM_SCHEDULING - boot memory and
> ACPI (cold)plug.
> 
> To make forward progress with this, relying on the system_state is
> obviously not sufficient.
> 
> 1. We have to fix this instance and the instance directly in
> get_nid_for_pfn() by passing in the context (I once had a patch to clean
> that up, to not have two state checks, but it got lost somewhere).
> 
> 2. The "system_state < SYSTEM_RUNNING" check in
> register_memory_resource() is correct. Actual memory hotplug after boot
> is not impacted. (I remember we discussed this exact behavior back then)
> 
> 3. build_all_zonelists() should work as expected, called from
> start_kernel() before sched_init().

I'm bit confused now.
Since hotplug operation is happening at SYSTEM_SCHEDULING like the regular 
memory registration, would it be enough to add a parameter to 
register_mem_sect_under_node() (reworking the memmap_context enum)?
That way the check is not based on the system state but on the calling path.


  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-10 12:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <5cbd92e1-c00a-4253-0119-c872bfa0f2bc@redhat.com>
     [not found] ` <20200908170835.85440-1-ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
     [not found]   ` <20200908173113.GB218801@kroah.com>
2020-09-09  6:56     ` [PATCH] mm: don't rely on system state to detect hot-plug operations Laurent Dufour
     [not found]     ` <cb05da3d-334b-4b72-88c1-f8ed6cfc91b7@redhat.com>
2020-09-09  8:26       ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-09  8:31         ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-09  9:35           ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-09  7:40   ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-09  7:48     ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-09  9:09       ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-09  9:21         ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-09  9:24           ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-09  9:32             ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-09 12:30             ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-09-09 12:32               ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-09 12:36                 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-09-09 12:45                 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-09 10:59           ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-09 16:07             ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-10  7:23               ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10  7:51                 ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-10 11:12                   ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 11:35                     ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-10 12:00                       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-10 12:36                         ` Laurent Dufour [this message]
2020-09-10 12:38                           ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-10 12:01                       ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 12:03                       ` Oscar Salvador
2020-09-10 12:32                         ` Laurent Dufour
2020-09-10 12:47                         ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 12:48                           ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 13:39                             ` Oscar Salvador
2020-09-10 13:51                               ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 14:40                                 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 12:49                           ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-10 13:54                             ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-10 13:57                               ` David Hildenbrand

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=ac9d3ea9-3735-8d38-e2d3-4eb69d5471b1@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=ldufour@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cheloha@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=nathanl@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=osalvador@suse.de \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox