Re: [PATCH -next v4] mm/hotplug: silence a lockdep splat with printk()

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 17.01.20 11:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 17-01-20 10:42:10, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 17.01.20 10:40, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Fri 17-01-20 10:25:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 17.01.20 09:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> On Fri 17-01-20 09:51:05, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>> On 17.01.20 03:21, Qian Cai wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Even though has_unmovable_pages doesn't hold any reference to the
>>>>>>> returned page this should be reasonably safe for the purpose of
>>>>>>> reporting the page (dump_page) because it cannot be hotremoved. The
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is only true in the context of memory unplug, but not in the
>>>>>> context of is_mem_section_removable()-> is_pageblock_removable_nolock().
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the above should hold for that path as well AFAICS. If the page is
>>>>> unmovable then a racing hotplug cannot remove it, right? Or do you
>>>>> consider a temporary unmovability to be a problem?
>>>>
>>>> Somebody could test /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryX/removable. While
>>>> returning the unmovable page, it could become movable and
>>>> offlining+removing could succeed.
>>>
>>> Doesn't this path use device lock or something? If not than the new code
>>> is not more racy then the existing one. Just look at
>>> is_pageblock_removable_nolock and how it dereferences struct page
>>> (page_zonenum in  page_zone.)
>>>
>>
>> AFAIK no device lock, no device hotplug lock, no memory hotplug lock. I
>> think it holds a reference to the device and to the kernelfs node. But
>> AFAIK that does not block removal of offlining/memory, just when the
>> objects get freed.
> 
> OK, so we are bug compatible after this patch ;)
> 

:D I'm cooking something to refactor that ... nice code :)

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb