Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: Add sysfs links from memory device to memblocks

Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-03-26T22:32:08Z

On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 09:42:06 AM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 14:04 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 25, 2013 02:02:10 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > In order to eject a memory device object represented as "PNP0C80:%d"
> > > in sysfs, its associated memblocks (system/memory/memory%d) need to
> > > be off-lined. However, there is no user friendly way to correlate
> > > between a memory device object and its memblocks in sysfs.
> > >
> > > This patch creates sysfs links to memblocks under a memory device
> > > object so that a user can easily checks and manipulates its memblocks
> > > in sysfs.
> > >
> > > For example, when PNP0C80:05 is associated with memory8 and memory9,
> > > the following two links are created under PNP0C80:05. This allows
> > > a user to access memory8/9 directly from PNP0C80:05.
> > >
> > > # ll /sys/devices/LNXSYSTM:00/LNXSYBUS:00/PNP0C80:05
> > > lrwxrwxrwx. memory8 -> ../../../system/memory/memory8
> > > lrwxrwxrwx. memory9 -> ../../../system/memory/memory9
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
> >
> > Here I have some doubts.
> >
> > This adds a very specific interface for user space that we're going to need to
> > maintain going forward if the user space starts to use it. However, it kind of
> > duplicates the existing "physical_node" interface that we have for "regular"
> > devices.
> >
> > So, if possible, I'd like the memory subsystem to utilize the existing
> > interface instead of creating an entirely new one. Namely, why don't we create
> > a struct device-based object for each memory block and associated those new
> > "devices" with the PNP0C80 ACPI object through the functions in glue.c?
> > Then, we could add an "offline/online" interface to those "devices" too.
>
> This patch simply adds symbolic links to system/memory/memoryN, which
> the memory subsystem already provides for the online/offline interface
> of memory blocks. So, it does not introduce a new interface, but guides
> users (and user tools) to know which memory blocks need to be off-lined
> in order to hot-delete any particular memory device PNP0C80:X. A cpu
> device LNXCPU:X also has a similar symbolic link "sysdev" that links to
> system/cpu/cpuN. I could not use the same "sysdev" for PNP0C80:X since
> it typically associates with multiple memory blocks.
>
> I thought about using glue.c to create symbolic links between memoryN
> and PNP0C80:X. However, it has an ordering issue. During boot-time,
> memoryN gets created before PNP0C80:X. But during hot-add, PNP0C80:X
> gets created before memoryN.

Quite frankly, this sounds like a bug to me. Namely, what is memoryN really
good for without PNP0C80:X? If it is not good for anything in that case,
it should never be created befor PNP0C80:X.

> This patch calls
> acpi_setup_mem_blk_links() in a point that solves this ordering issue
> since this point guarantees that both memoryN and PNP0C80X are created
> for both boot-time and hot-add.

I would prefer the ordering of creation to be the same in both cases.
Otherwise it really looks like we need to work around a problem that we're
creating for ourselves.

How exactly are memoryN created during boot?

Rafael

> > > ---
> > >
> > > This patch applies on top of the Rafael's patch below.
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2153261/
> > >
> > > v2: Added a NULL return check for find_memory_block_hinted() as
> > > pointed by Yasuaki Ishimatsu.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c
> > > index 3b3abbc..98477a5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c
> > > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> > > */
> > >
> > > #include <linux/acpi.h>
> > > +#include <linux/memory.h>
> > > #include <linux/memory_hotplug.h>
> > >
> > > #include "internal.h"
> > > @@ -168,6 +169,55 @@ static int acpi_memory_check_device(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device)
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void acpi_setup_mem_blk_links(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device,
> > > + struct acpi_memory_info *info, bool add_links)
> > > +{
> > > + struct memory_block *mem_blk = NULL;
> > > + struct mem_section *mem_sect;
> > > + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn, pfn;
> > > + unsigned long section_nr;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + start_pfn = PFN_DOWN(info->start_addr);
> > > + end_pfn = PFN_UP(info->start_addr + info->length-1);
> > > +
> > > + for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
> > > + section_nr = pfn_to_section_nr(pfn);
> > > +
> > > + if (!present_section_nr(section_nr))
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + mem_sect = __nr_to_section(section_nr);
> > > +
> > > + /* skip if the same memblock */
> > > + if (mem_blk)
> > > + if ((section_nr >= mem_blk->start_section_nr) &&
> > > + (section_nr <= mem_blk->end_section_nr))
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + mem_blk = find_memory_block_hinted(mem_sect, mem_blk);
> > > + if (!mem_blk)
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + if (add_links) {
> > > + ret = sysfs_create_link_nowarn(
> > > + &mem_device->device->dev.kobj,
> > > + &mem_blk->dev.kobj,
> > > + kobject_name(&mem_blk->dev.kobj));
> > > + if (ret && ret != -EEXIST)
> > > + dev_err(&mem_device->device->dev,
> > > + "Failed to create sysfs link %s\n",
> > > + kobject_name(&mem_blk->dev.kobj));
> > > + } else {
> > > + sysfs_remove_link(&mem_device->device->dev.kobj,
> > > + kobject_name(&mem_blk->dev.kobj));
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (mem_blk)
> > > + kobject_put(&mem_blk->dev.kobj);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static int acpi_memory_enable_device(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device)
> > > {
> > > int result, num_enabled = 0;
> > > @@ -207,6 +257,9 @@ static int acpi_memory_enable_device(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device)
> > > continue;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + /* Create sysfs links to its mem_blk devices */
> > > + acpi_setup_mem_blk_links(mem_device, info, true);
> > > +
> > > if (!result)
> > > info->enabled = 1;
> > > /*
> > > @@ -241,6 +294,9 @@ static int acpi_memory_remove_memory(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device)
> > > /* The kernel does not use this memory block */
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > + /* Remove sysfs links to its mem_blk devices */
> > > + acpi_setup_mem_blk_links(mem_device, info, false);
> > > +
> > > if (!info->enabled)
> > > /*
> > > * The kernel uses this memory block, but it may be not
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.