From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com>,
Sheng Yong <shengyong1@huawei.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Zhu Guihua <zhugh.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory-hotplug: don't BUG() in register_memory_resource()
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:13:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8737uwt8hw.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151218145022.eae1e368c82f090900582fcc@linux-foundation.org> (Andrew Morton's message of "Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:50:22 -0800")
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:50:24 +0100 Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Out of memory condition is not a bug and while we can't add new memory in
>> such case crashing the system seems wrong. Propagating the return value
>> from register_memory_resource() requires interface change.
>>
>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> +static int register_memory_resource(u64 start, u64 size,
>> + struct resource **resource)
>> {
>> struct resource *res;
>> res = kzalloc(sizeof(struct resource), GFP_KERNEL);
>> - BUG_ON(!res);
>> + if (!res)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> res->name = "System RAM";
>> res->start = start;
>> @@ -140,9 +142,10 @@ static struct resource *register_memory_resource(u64 start, u64 size)
>> if (request_resource(&iomem_resource, res) < 0) {
>> pr_debug("System RAM resource %pR cannot be added\n", res);
>> kfree(res);
>> - res = NULL;
>> + return -EEXIST;
>> }
>> - return res;
>> + *resource = res;
>> + return 0;
>> }
>
> Was there a reason for overwriting the request_resource() return
> value?
> Ordinarily it should be propagated back to callers.
>
> Please review.
>
This is a nice-to-have addition but it will break at least ACPI
memhotplug: request_resource() has the following:
conflict = request_resource_conflict(root, new);
return conflict ? -EBUSY : 0;
so we'll end up returning -EBUSY from register_memory_resource() and
add_memory(), at the same time acpi_memory_enable_device() counts on
-EEXIST:
result = add_memory(node, info->start_addr, info->length);
/*
* If the memory block has been used by the kernel, add_memory()
* returns -EEXIST. If add_memory() returns the other error, it
* means that this memory block is not used by the kernel.
*/
if (result && result != -EEXIST)
continue;
So I see 3 options here:
1) Keep the overwrite
2) Change the request_resource() return value to -EEXIST
3) Adapt all add_memory() call sites to -EBUSY.
Please let me know your preference.
> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c~memory-hotplug-dont-bug-in-register_memory_resource-fix
> +++ a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> @@ -131,7 +131,9 @@ static int register_memory_resource(u64
> struct resource **resource)
> {
> struct resource *res;
> + int ret = 0;
> res = kzalloc(sizeof(struct resource), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> if (!res)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> @@ -139,13 +141,14 @@ static int register_memory_resource(u64
> res->start = start;
> res->end = start + size - 1;
> res->flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
> - if (request_resource(&iomem_resource, res) < 0) {
> + ret = request_resource(&iomem_resource, res);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> pr_debug("System RAM resource %pR cannot be added\n", res);
> kfree(res);
> - return -EEXIST;
> + } else {
> + *resource = res;
> }
> - *resource = res;
> - return 0;
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static void release_memory_resource(struct resource *res)
> _
--
Vitaly
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-21 10:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-18 14:50 Vitaly Kuznetsov
2015-12-18 16:33 ` Igor Mammedov
2015-12-18 22:50 ` Andrew Morton
2015-12-21 10:13 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov [this message]
2015-12-21 23:06 ` Andrew Morton
2015-12-22 21:56 ` David Rientjes
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=8737uwt8hw.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com \
--to=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
--cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=qiuxishi@huawei.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shengyong1@huawei.com \
--cc=tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=zhugh.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
/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