Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] mm/memory_hotplug: Create memory block devices after arch_add_memory()

Wei Yang
2019-05-09T21:50:34Z

On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:58:56PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>On 09.05.19 16:31, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 08:38:00PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> Only memory to be added to the buddy and to be onlined/offlined by
>>> user space using memory block devices needs (and should have!) memory
>>> block devices.
>>>
>>> Factor out creation of memory block devices Create all devices after
>>> arch_add_memory() succeeded. We can later drop the want_memblock parameter,
>>> because it is now effectively stale.
>>>
>>> Only after memory block devices have been added, memory can be onlined
>>> by user space. This implies, that memory is not visible to user space at
>>> all before arch_add_memory() succeeded.
>>>
>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: "mike.travis@hpe.com" <mike.travis@hpe.com>
>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Andrew Banman <andrew.banman@hpe.com>
>>> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
>>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>>> Cc: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
>>> Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
>>> Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Arun KS <arunks@codeaurora.org>
>>> Cc: Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/base/memory.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>> include/linux/memory.h | 2 +-
>>> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 15 ++++-----
>>> 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
>>> index 6e0cb4fda179..862c202a18ca 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
>>> @@ -701,44 +701,62 @@ static int add_memory_block(int base_section_nr)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void unregister_memory(struct memory_block *memory)
>>> +{
>>> + BUG_ON(memory->dev.bus != &memory_subsys);
>>> +
>>> + /* drop the ref. we got via find_memory_block() */
>>> + put_device(&memory->dev);
>>> + device_unregister(&memory->dev);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /*
>>> - * need an interface for the VM to add new memory regions,
>>> - * but without onlining it.
>>> + * Create memory block devices for the given memory area. Start and size
>>> + * have to be aligned to memory block granularity. Memory block devices
>>> + * will be initialized as offline.
>>> */
>>> -int hotplug_memory_register(int nid, struct mem_section *section)
>>> +int hotplug_memory_register(unsigned long start, unsigned long size)
>>
>> One trivial suggestion about the function name.
>>
>> For memory_block device, sometimes we use the full name
>>
>> find_memory_block
>> init_memory_block
>> add_memory_block
>>
>> But sometimes we use *nick* name
>>
>> hotplug_memory_register
>> register_memory
>> unregister_memory
>>
>> This is a little bit confusion.
>>
>> Can we use one name convention here?
>
>We can just go for
>
>crate_memory_blocks() and free_memory_blocks(). Or do
>you have better suggestions?

s/crate/create/

Looks good to me.

>
>(I would actually even prefer "memory_block_devices", because memory
>blocks have different meanins)
>

Agree with you, this comes to my mind sometime ago :-)

>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> /*
>>> @@ -1106,6 +1100,13 @@ int __ref add_memory_resource(int nid, struct resource *res)
>>> if (ret < 0)
>>> goto error;
>>>
>>> + /* create memory block devices after memory was added */
>>> + ret = hotplug_memory_register(start, size);
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + arch_remove_memory(nid, start, size, NULL);
>>
>> Functionally, it works I think.
>>
>> But arch_remove_memory() would remove pages from zone. At this point, we just
>> allocate section/mmap for pages, the zones are empty and pages are not
>> connected to zone.
>>
>> Function zone = page_zone(page); always gets zone #0, since pages->flags is 0
>> at this point. This is not exact.
>>
>> Would we add some comment to mention this? Or we need to clean up
>> arch_remove_memory() to take out __remove_zone()?
>
>That is precisely what is on my list next (see cover letter).This is
>already broken when memory that was never onlined is removed again.
>So I am planning to fix that independently.
>

Sounds great :-)

Hope you would cc me in the following series.

>
>--
>
>Thanks,
>
>David / dhildenb

--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me