From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f72.google.com (mail-lf0-f72.google.com [209.85.215.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B64B2808E3 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 17:21:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-lf0-f72.google.com with SMTP id h89so48037742lfi.6 for ; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 14:21:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from cloudserver094114.home.net.pl (cloudserver094114.home.net.pl. [79.96.170.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t190si598707lfe.283.2017.03.09.14.21.06 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 09 Mar 2017 14:21:06 -0800 (PST) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: add private lock to serialize memory hotplug operations Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 23:15:47 +0100 Message-ID: <3207330.x0D3JT6f2l@aspire.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20170309130616.51286-1-heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> <1625096.urmnZ9bKn4@aspire.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dan Williams Cc: Heiko Carstens , Andrew Morton , Linux MM , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-s390 , Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , Ben Hutchings , Gerald Schaefer , Martin Schwidefsky , Sebastian Ott On Thursday, March 09, 2017 10:10:31 AM Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, March 09, 2017 02:06:15 PM Heiko Carstens wrote: > >> Commit bfc8c90139eb ("mem-hotplug: implement get/put_online_mems") > >> introduced new functions get/put_online_mems() and > >> mem_hotplug_begin/end() in order to allow similar semantics for memory > >> hotplug like for cpu hotplug. > >> > >> The corresponding functions for cpu hotplug are get/put_online_cpus() > >> and cpu_hotplug_begin/done() for cpu hotplug. > >> > >> The commit however missed to introduce functions that would serialize > >> memory hotplug operations like they are done for cpu hotplug with > >> cpu_maps_update_begin/done(). > >> > >> This basically leaves mem_hotplug.active_writer unprotected and allows > >> concurrent writers to modify it, which may lead to problems as > >> outlined by commit f931ab479dd2 ("mm: fix devm_memremap_pages crash, > >> use mem_hotplug_{begin, done}"). > >> > >> That commit was extended again with commit b5d24fda9c3d ("mm, > >> devm_memremap_pages: hold device_hotplug lock over mem_hotplug_{begin, > >> done}") which serializes memory hotplug operations for some call > >> sites by using the device_hotplug lock. > >> > >> In addition with commit 3fc21924100b ("mm: validate device_hotplug is > >> held for memory hotplug") a sanity check was added to > >> mem_hotplug_begin() to verify that the device_hotplug lock is held. > > > > Admittedly, I haven't looked at all of the code paths involved in detail yet, > > but there's one concern regarding lock/unlock_device_hotplug(). > > > > The actual main purpose of it is to ensure safe removal of devices in cases > > when they cannot be removed separately, like when a whole CPU package > > (including possibly an entire NUMA node with memory and all) is removed. > > > > One of the code paths doing that is acpi_scan_hot_remove() which first > > tries to offline devices slated for removal and then finally removes them. > > > > The reason why this needs to be done in two stages is because the offlining > > can fail, in which case we will fail the entire operation, while the final > > removal step is, well, final (meaning that the devices are gone after it no > > matter what). > > > > This is done under device_hotplug_lock, so that the devices that were taken > > offline in stage 1 cannot be brought back online before stage 2 is carried > > out entirely, which surely would be bad if it happened. > > > > Now, I'm not sure if removing lock/unlock_device_hotplug() from the code in > > question actually affects this mechanism, but this in case it does, it is one > > thing to double check before going ahead with this patch. > > > > I *think* we're ok in this case because unplugging the CPU package > that contains a persistent memory device will trigger > devm_memremap_pages() to call arch_remove_memory(). Removing a pmem > device can't fail. It may be held off while pages are pinned for DMA > memory, but it will eventually complete. What about the offlining, though? Is it guaranteed that no memory from those ranges will go back online after the acpi_scan_try_to_offline() call in acpi_scan_hot_remove()? Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org