From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D23C433B4 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:44:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1B96143D for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:44:44 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7B1B96143D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E98E66B006C; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:44:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E6F566B006E; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:44:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id D10086B0070; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:44:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0031.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.31]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6DC6B006C for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:44:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D13682499B9 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:44:43 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78055738446.27.4BBFBF4 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by imf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C19600011F for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:44:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1618994682; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=bcu+wrxn0FqEovyk3sgh/f7CXEAiST4+EaHgahYx5jU=; b=BIvCNiBcQlW27Jd1gb9v/CDl24pq+f3ypWC60K43hRcUlU0HENN9ty3T6sHs7jwrRVO32z dq4+Sq384iQvpvCZphhkIMfmup34qdSxfZbwma7klAqVIIZcDH9rnK3XAhR3Bvo4nZFT0W uDkgyjSx1LYevta9UazvREs4kZgSNm4= Received: from mail-ed1-f71.google.com (mail-ed1-f71.google.com [209.85.208.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-298-MEjkB4VhPJqZUpF5S_EQVA-1; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:44:41 -0400 X-MC-Unique: MEjkB4VhPJqZUpF5S_EQVA-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f71.google.com with SMTP id z3-20020a05640240c3b029037fb0c2bd3bso14745142edb.23 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:44:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bcu+wrxn0FqEovyk3sgh/f7CXEAiST4+EaHgahYx5jU=; b=Ub+UbYs+nnq1FiMyiF7IrZvMi7giD99Zi0H3ypNoC3dH09HdAZVNCeUcAYQP9BKJwy k79A7E10ZOY+8KiijENDNYgF70KE5fhpYHKoTTINWk8+YvBL3CAZfuKbDBaTdcvYMKxG pHRLOE+6OlN/U0qzBu958vtXe53Ojg/OfcQNFi9+BdP1FshKot/5OahiGFqg+jkB7vvb 0O6MzC+tADvnorS3p5YVbIFPZHuDZQU2SG92exB4tRsRCjKrz2ya8nP74aooxw/WceBt 2YZVrnGY4diDGLHDTL1ltSq5Y23EGhKPivpaNLCGvcqsEdsRT28BVwmGgQ8Sx+94Obb8 kRlw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532g1iuuwZ+bFDP6W1VbvQ1CpCQrtZZI0Mk3+vWpSCwDwT+r+c+s lhMXAQnVQWuIMdhFU6Qcn0E/NgIb+IzsTa6aTniZmvlYCFsG4EU+S/F725k3tdZOsV6pphY5uFU VnIJWHiSO5AQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1b11:: with SMTP id mp17mr12776372ejc.1.1618994679819; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:44:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxPUTjREzwxVVb+hC6ridnEY1W4T5jRx1GvQO/A5PCE3+cm8DMLZKdHPR6IcFvegByCc8rkBw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1b11:: with SMTP id mp17mr12776357ejc.1.1618994679589; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.3.132] (p5b0c64b8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [91.12.100.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c19sm2271296edu.20.2021.04.21.01.44.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/8] mm,memory_hotplug: Allocate memmap from the added memory range To: Michal Hocko , Oscar Salvador Cc: Andrew Morton , Anshuman Khandual , Pavel Tatashin , Vlastimil Babka , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20210416112411.9826-1-osalvador@suse.de> <20210416112411.9826-5-osalvador@suse.de> <20210421081546.GD22456@linux> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:44:38 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47C19600011F X-Stat-Signature: ab6eskgjtiukkf4cymyqc9tubnsms7qd Received-SPF: none (redhat.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf09; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com; client-ip=170.10.133.124 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1618994678-576875 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 21.04.21 10:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 21-04-21 10:15:46, Oscar Salvador wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:56:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >>> necessary. Using two different iteration styles is also hurting the code >>> readability. I would go with the following >>> for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; ) { >>> unsigned long order = min(MAX_ORDER - 1UL, __ffs(pfn)); >>> >>> while (start + (1UL << order) > end_pfn) >>> order--; >>> (*online_page_callback)(pfn_to_page(pfn), pageblock_order); >>> pfn += 1 << order; >>> } >>> >>> which is what __free_pages_memory does already. >> >> this is kinda what I used to have in the early versions, but it was agreed >> with David to split it in two loops to make it explicit. >> I can go back to that if it is preferred. > > Not that I would insist but I find it better to use common constructs > when it doesn't hurt readability. The order evaluation can be even done > in a trivial helper. > >>>> + if (memmap_on_memory) { >>>> + nr_vmemmap_pages = walk_memory_blocks(start, size, NULL, >>>> + get_nr_vmemmap_pages_cb); >>>> + if (nr_vmemmap_pages) { >>>> + if (size != memory_block_size_bytes()) { >>>> + pr_warn("Refuse to remove %#llx - %#llx," >>>> + "wrong granularity\n", >>>> + start, start + size); >>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + /* >>>> + * Let remove_pmd_table->free_hugepage_table do the >>>> + * right thing if we used vmem_altmap when hot-adding >>>> + * the range. >>>> + */ >>>> + mhp_altmap.alloc = nr_vmemmap_pages; >>>> + altmap = &mhp_altmap; >>>> + } >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> /* remove memmap entry */ >>>> firmware_map_remove(start, start + size, "System RAM"); >>> >>> I have to say I still dislike this and I would just wrap it inside out >>> and do the operation from within walk_memory_blocks but I will not >>> insist. >> >> I have to confess I forgot about the details of that dicussion, as we were >> quite focused on decoupling vmemmap pages from {online,offline} interface. >> Would you mind elaborating a bit more? > > As I've said I will not insist and this can be done in the follow up. > You are iterating over memory blocks just to refuse to do an operation > which can be split to several memory blocks. See > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/YFtPxH0CT5QZsnR1@dhcp22.suse.cz and follow > walk_memory_blocks(start, size, NULL, remove_memory_block_cb) > We'll have to be careful in general when removing memory in different granularity than it was added, especially calling arch_remove_memory() in smaller granularity than it was added via arch_add_memory(). We might fail to tear down the direct map, imagine having mapped a 1GiB page but decide to remove individual 128 MiB chunks -- that won't work and the direct map would currently remain. So this should be handled separately in the future. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb