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

David Hildenbrand
2019-05-09T14:05:29Z

On 09.05.19 15:55, 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)
>> {
>> - int ret = 0;
>> + unsigned long block_nr_pages = memory_block_size_bytes() >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> + unsigned long start_pfn = PFN_DOWN(start);
>> + unsigned long end_pfn = start_pfn + (size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>> + unsigned long pfn;
>> struct memory_block *mem;
>> + int ret = 0;
>>
>> - mutex_lock(&mem_sysfs_mutex);
>> + BUG_ON(!IS_ALIGNED(start, memory_block_size_bytes()));
>> + BUG_ON(!IS_ALIGNED(size, memory_block_size_bytes()));
>>
>> - mem = find_memory_block(section);
>> - if (mem) {
>> - mem->section_count++;
>> - put_device(&mem->dev);
>> - } else {
>> - ret = init_memory_block(&mem, section, MEM_OFFLINE);
>> + mutex_lock(&mem_sysfs_mutex);
>> + for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn != end_pfn; pfn += block_nr_pages) {
>> + mem = find_memory_block(__pfn_to_section(pfn));
>> + if (mem) {
>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(false);
>
> One question here, the purpose of WARN_ON_ONCE(false) is? Would we trigger
> this?

Would happen if something goes terribly wrong. We might want to remove
this once we are sure this will not happen.

I replaced it in the meantime by a

if (WARN_ON_ONCE(mem)) {
put_device(&mem->dev);
ret = -EEXIST;
break;
}

>
>> + put_device(&mem->dev);
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> + ret = init_memory_block(&mem, __pfn_to_section(pfn),
>> + MEM_OFFLINE);
>> if (ret)
>> - goto out;
>> - mem->section_count++;
>> + break;
>> + mem->section_count = memory_block_size_bytes() /
>> + MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE;
>
> Maybe we can leverage sections_per_block variable.

Most certainly if it does what I think it does :) thanks!

--

Thanks,

David / dhildenb