From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
To: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413@gmail.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] hotplug-memory.c: enhance dlpar_memory_remove* LMB checks
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 11:02:44 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YJCdNJRSLCOV59dE@yekko> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210430120917.217951-3-danielhb413@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4217 bytes --]
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 09:09:16AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> dlpar_memory_remove_by_ic() validates the amount of LMBs to be removed
> by checking !DRCONF_MEM_RESERVED, and in the following loop before
> dlpar_remove_lmb() a check for DRCONF_MEM_ASSIGNED is made before
> removing it. This means that a LMB that is both !DRCONF_MEM_RESERVED and
> !DRCONF_MEM_ASSIGNED will be counted as valid, but then not being
> removed. The function will end up not removing all 'lmbs_to_remove'
> LMBs while also not reporting any errors.
>
> Comparing it to dlpar_memory_remove_by_count(), the validation is done
> via lmb_is_removable(), which checks for DRCONF_MEM_ASSIGNED and fadump
> constraints. No additional check is made afterwards, and
> DRCONF_MEM_RESERVED is never checked before dlpar_remove_lmb(). The
> function doesn't have the same 'check A for validation, then B for
> removal' issue as remove_by_ic(), but it's not checking if the LMB is
> reserved.
>
> There is no reason for these functions to validate the same operation in
> two different manners.
Actually, I think there is: remove_by_ic() is handling a request to
remove a specific range of LMBs. If any are reserved, they can't be
removed and so this needs to fail. But if they are !ASSIGNED, that
essentially means they're *already* removed (or never added), so
"removing" them is, correctly, a no-op.
remove_by_count(), in contrast, is being asked to remove a fixed
number of LMBs from wherever they can be found, and for that it needs
to find LMBs that haven't already been removed.
Basically remove_by_ic() is an absolute request: "make this set of
LMBs be not-plugged", whereas remove_by_count() is a relative request
"make N less LMBs be plugged".
So I think remove_by_ic()s existing handling is correct. I'm less
sure if remove_by_count() ignoring RESERVED is correct - I couldn't
quickly find under what circumstances RESERVED gets set.
> This patch addresses that by changing
> lmb_is_removable() to also check for DRCONF_MEM_RESERVED to tell if a
> lmb is removable, making dlpar_memory_remove_by_count() take the
> reservation state into account when counting the LMBs.
> lmb_is_removable() is then used in the validation step of
> dlpar_memory_remove_by_ic(), which is already checking for both states
> but in different stages, to avoid counting a LMB that is not assigned as
> eligible for removal. We can then skip the check before
> dlpar_remove_lmb() since we're validating all LMBs beforehand.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413@gmail.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c | 8 +++-----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c
> index bb98574a84a2..4e6d162c3f1a 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c
> @@ -348,7 +348,8 @@ static int pseries_remove_mem_node(struct device_node *np)
>
> static bool lmb_is_removable(struct drmem_lmb *lmb)
> {
> - if (!(lmb->flags & DRCONF_MEM_ASSIGNED))
> + if ((lmb->flags & DRCONF_MEM_RESERVED) ||
> + !(lmb->flags & DRCONF_MEM_ASSIGNED))
> return false;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_FA_DUMP
> @@ -523,7 +524,7 @@ static int dlpar_memory_remove_by_ic(u32 lmbs_to_remove, u32 drc_index)
>
> /* Validate that there are enough LMBs to satisfy the request */
> for_each_drmem_lmb_in_range(lmb, start_lmb, end_lmb) {
> - if (lmb->flags & DRCONF_MEM_RESERVED)
> + if (!lmb_is_removable(lmb))
> break;
>
> lmbs_available++;
> @@ -533,9 +534,6 @@ static int dlpar_memory_remove_by_ic(u32 lmbs_to_remove, u32 drc_index)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> for_each_drmem_lmb_in_range(lmb, start_lmb, end_lmb) {
> - if (!(lmb->flags & DRCONF_MEM_ASSIGNED))
> - continue;
> -
> rc = dlpar_remove_lmb(lmb);
> if (rc)
> break;
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-04 1:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-30 12:09 [PATCH 0/3] Unisolate LMBs DRC on removal error + cleanups Daniel Henrique Barboza
2021-04-30 12:09 ` [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/pseries: Set UNISOLATE on dlpar_memory_remove_by_ic() error Daniel Henrique Barboza
2021-05-04 0:45 ` David Gibson
2021-04-30 12:09 ` [PATCH 2/3] hotplug-memory.c: enhance dlpar_memory_remove* LMB checks Daniel Henrique Barboza
2021-05-04 1:02 ` David Gibson [this message]
2021-05-07 16:36 ` Daniel Henrique Barboza
2021-05-09 8:43 ` David Gibson
2021-05-12 20:35 ` Daniel Henrique Barboza
2021-05-13 5:22 ` David Gibson
2021-04-30 12:09 ` [PATCH 3/3] pseries/hotplug-memory.c: adding dlpar_memory_remove_lmbs_common() Daniel Henrique Barboza
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=YJCdNJRSLCOV59dE@yekko \
--to=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=danielhb413@gmail.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).