From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@kernel.org>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm/memory_hotplug: fixup crash during uevent handling
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 13:53:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <132ac071-01ab-4d4d-bc6d-208413410bc2@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250701114155.16452-1-hare@kernel.org>
On 01.07.25 13:41, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
>
> Hi all,
Hi,
>
> we have some udev rules trying to read the sysfs attribute 'valid_zones' during
> an memory 'add' event, causing a crash in zone_for_pfn_range(). Debugging found
> that mem->nid was set to NUMA_NO_NODE, which crashed in NODE_DATA(nid).
> Further analysis revealed that we're running into a race with udev event
> processing: add_memory_resource() has this function calls:
>
> 1) __try_online_node()
> 2) arch_add_memory()
> 3) create_memory_block_devices()
> -> calls device_register() -> memory 'add' event
> 4) node_set_online()/__register_one_node()
> -> calls device_register() -> node 'add' event
> 5) register_memory_blocks_under_node()
> -> sets mem->nid
>
> Which, to the uninitated, is ... weird ...
>
> Why do we try to online the node in 1), but only register
> the node in 4) _after_ we have created the memory blocks in 3) ?
> And why do we set the 'nid' value in 5), when the uevent
> (which might need to see the correct 'nid' value) is sent out
> in 3) ?
> There must be a reason, I'm sure ...
Probably just they way things developed historically.
We have some weird things to handle when we have early memory blocks
that span multiple nodes. memory_block_add_nid() is all about that, and
maintaining mem->zone accordingly.
Probably should just be cleaned up.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-01 11:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-01 11:41 Hannes Reinecke
2025-07-01 11:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] drivers/base/memory: add node id parameter to add_memory_block() Hannes Reinecke
2025-07-01 11:55 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-07-01 13:57 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-07-01 11:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm/memory_hotplug: activate node before adding new memory blocks Hannes Reinecke
2025-07-01 12:09 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-07-01 12:18 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-07-01 14:02 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-07-01 18:52 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-07-01 18:55 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-07-01 19:23 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-07-02 5:24 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-07-02 6:25 ` Donet Tom
2025-07-02 6:36 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-07-02 7:52 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-07-01 11:53 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
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=132ac071-01ab-4d4d-bc6d-208413410bc2@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=hare@kernel.org \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
/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