Re: [PATCH v3 06/12] memory-hotplug: unregister memory section on SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP

Wen Congyang
2012-11-21T05:22:28Z

At 11/21/2012 01:03 PM, Jaegeuk Hanse Wrote:
> On 11/21/2012 12:42 PM, Wen Congyang wrote:
>> At 11/21/2012 12:22 PM, Jaegeuk Hanse Wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2012 11:05 AM, Wen Congyang wrote:
>>>> At 11/20/2012 07:16 PM, Jaegeuk Hanse Wrote:
>>>>> On 11/01/2012 05:44 PM, Wen Congyang wrote:
>>>>>> From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently __remove_section for SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP does nothing. But
>>>>>> even if
>>>>>> we use SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, we can unregister the memory_section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the patch add unregister_memory_section() into __remove_section().
>>>>> Hi Yasuaki,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a question about these sparse vmemmap memory related
>>>>> patches. Hot
>>>>> add memory need allocated vmemmap pages, but this time is allocated by
>>>>> buddy system. How can gurantee virtual address is continuous to the
>>>>> address allocated before? If not continuous, page_to_pfn and
>>>>> pfn_to_page
>>>>> can't work correctly.
>>>> vmemmap has its virtual address range:
>>>> ffffea0000000000 - ffffeaffffffffff (=40 bits) virtual memory map (1TB)
>>>>
>>>> We allocate memory from buddy system to store struct page, and its
>>>> virtual
>>>> address isn't in this range. So we should update the page table:
>>>>
>>>> kmalloc_section_memmap()
>>>> sparse_mem_map_populate()
>>>> pfn_to_page() // get the virtual address in the vmemmap range
>>>> vmemmap_populate() // we update page table here
>>>>
>>>> When we use vmemmap, page_to_pfn() always returns address in the
>>>> vmemmap
>>>> range, not the address that kmalloc() returns. So the virtual address
>>>> is continuous.
>>> Hi Congyang,
>>>
>>> Another question about memory hotplug. During hot remove memory, it will
>>> also call memblock_remove to remove related memblock.
>> IIRC, we don't touch memblock when hot-add/hot-remove memory. memblock is
>> only used for bootmem allocator. I think it isn't used after booting.
>
> In IBM pseries servers.
>
> pseries_remove_memory()
> pseries_remove_memblock()
> memblock_remove()

It seems that pseries servers don't use ACPI(ACPI is only supported for
ia64 and x86 now. arm will be supported in the furture).

I am not ppc expert, and I don't know why we touch memblock when hotadding
memory in ppc case. But IIRC, we don't need memblock after the machine has
booted up in x86 case. So there is no need to touch it when hotadd/hotremove
the memory in x86 case.

Thanks
Wen Congyang

>
> Furthermore, memblock is set to record available memory ranges get from
> e820 map(you can check it in memblock_x86_fill()) in x86 case, after
> hot-remove memory, this range of memory can't be available, why not
> remove them as pseries servers' codes do.
>
>>> memblock_remove()
>>> __memblock_remove()memory-hotplug: unregister memory
>>> section on SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP
>>>
>>> memblock_isolate_range()
>>> memblock_remove_region()
>>>
>>> But memblock_isolate_range() only record fully contained regions,
>>> regions which are partial overlapped just be splitted instead of record.
>>> So these partial overlapped regions can't be removed. Where I miss?
>> No, memblock_isolate_range() can deal with partial overlapped region.
>> =====================
>> if (rbase < base) {
>> /*
>> * @rgn intersects from below. Split and continue
>> * to process the next region - the new top half.
>> */
>> rgn->base = base;
>> rgn->size -= base - rbase;
>> type->total_size -= base - rbase;
>> memblock_insert_region(type, i, rbase, base - rbase,
>> memblock_get_region_node(rgn));
>> } else if (rend > end) {
>> /*
>> * @rgn intersects from above. Split and redo the
>> * current region - the new bottom half.
>> */
>> rgn->base = end;
>> rgn->size -= end - rbase;
>> type->total_size -= end - rbase;
>> memblock_insert_region(type, i--, rbase, end - rbase,
>> memblock_get_region_node(rgn));
>> =====================
>>
>> If the region is partial overlapped region, we will split the old
>> region into
>> two regions. After doing this, it is full contained region now.
>
> You are right, I misunderstand the codes.
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Wen Congyang
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jaegeuk
>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Wen Congyang
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Jaegeuk
>>>>>
>>>>>> CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
>>>>>> CC: Jiang Liu <liuj97@gmail.com>
>>>>>> CC: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
>>>>>> CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
>>>>>> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>>>>>> CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>>>>> CC: Wen Congyang <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>>>> index ca07433..66a79a7 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>>>> @@ -286,11 +286,14 @@ static int __meminit __add_section(int nid,
>>>>>> struct zone *zone,
>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP
>>>>>> static int __remove_section(struct zone *zone, struct mem_section
>>>>>> *ms)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> - /*
>>>>>> - * XXX: Freeing memmap with vmemmap is not implement yet.
>>>>>> - * This should be removed later.
>>>>>> - */
>>>>>> - return -EBUSY;
>>>>>> + int ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (!valid_section(ms))
>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + ret = unregister_memory_section(ms);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> #else
>>>>>> static int __remove_section(struct zone *zone, struct mem_section
>>>>>> *ms)
>>>
>
>