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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, 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 BE2CCC2D0DB for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:46:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8B0217F4 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:46:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="TqqQBxXM" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7B8B0217F4 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 137136B0006; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 0C0276B0007; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:29 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id EA28E6B0008; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:28 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0020.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.20]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB7F06B0006 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 80C663D0F for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:46:28 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76406150856.17.jail38_72acb20bc8b41 X-HE-Tag: jail38_72acb20bc8b41 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 9475 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by imf39.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:46:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1579718787; 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:autocrypt:autocrypt; bh=72eGgULRC6tea8R60LH4BtVs8Rp8ocmUvEhwlH+gizA=; b=TqqQBxXMr4kxoyvaziBkFv8Zs1AHn9+bsOzSK0yZFt00mDED6iF2srKOX6cIqge33D/IQN RYmU5mDUqkj4RaNWm6TAAWzjPHOZMb7IfjthkklEdxaafGyBJMCFUFpY2fDlTr/gcmJe/t d0FFYF+lEManJRDvOg+PoG8OrZZPuB8= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-183-90aYSmYCNPyhEpJxQoxhSA-1; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:23 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 90aYSmYCNPyhEpJxQoxhSA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24C631800D78; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:46:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.116.20] (ovpn-116-20.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.20]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1292486430; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:46:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1] mm: is_mem_section_removable() overhaul To: Michal Hocko Cc: Dan Williams , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux MM , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , Leonardo Bras , Nathan Lynch , Allison Randal , Nathan Fontenot , Thomas Gleixner , Stephen Rothwell , Anshuman Khandual , lantianyu1986@gmail.com, linuxppc-dev References: <20200120074816.GG18451@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200121120714.GJ29276@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200122104230.GU29276@dhcp22.suse.cz> <98b6c208-b4dd-9052-43f6-543068c649cc@redhat.com> <816ddd66-c90b-76f1-f4a0-72fe41263edd@redhat.com> <20200122164618.GY29276@dhcp22.suse.cz> <626d344e-8243-c161-cd07-ed1276eba73d@redhat.com> <20200122183809.GB29276@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: David Hildenbrand Autocrypt: addr=david@redhat.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFXLn5EBEAC+zYvAFJxCBY9Tr1xZgcESmxVNI/0ffzE/ZQOiHJl6mGkmA1R7/uUpiCjJ dBrn+lhhOYjjNefFQou6478faXE6o2AhmebqT4KiQoUQFV4R7y1KMEKoSyy8hQaK1umALTdL QZLQMzNE74ap+GDK0wnacPQFpcG1AE9RMq3aeErY5tujekBS32jfC/7AnH7I0v1v1TbbK3Gp XNeiN4QroO+5qaSr0ID2sz5jtBLRb15RMre27E1ImpaIv2Jw8NJgW0k/D1RyKCwaTsgRdwuK Kx/Y91XuSBdz0uOyU/S8kM1+ag0wvsGlpBVxRR/xw/E8M7TEwuCZQArqqTCmkG6HGcXFT0V9 PXFNNgV5jXMQRwU0O/ztJIQqsE5LsUomE//bLwzj9IVsaQpKDqW6TAPjcdBDPLHvriq7kGjt WhVhdl0qEYB8lkBEU7V2Yb+SYhmhpDrti9Fq1EsmhiHSkxJcGREoMK/63r9WLZYI3+4W2rAc UucZa4OT27U5ZISjNg3Ev0rxU5UH2/pT4wJCfxwocmqaRr6UYmrtZmND89X0KigoFD/XSeVv jwBRNjPAubK9/k5NoRrYqztM9W6sJqrH8+UWZ1Idd/DdmogJh0gNC0+N42Za9yBRURfIdKSb B3JfpUqcWwE7vUaYrHG1nw54pLUoPG6sAA7Mehl3nd4pZUALHwARAQABtCREYXZpZCBIaWxk ZW5icmFuZCA8ZGF2aWRAcmVkaGF0LmNvbT6JAlgEEwEIAEICGwMFCQlmAYAGCwkIBwMCBhUI AgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAFiEEG9nKrXNcTDpGDfzKTd4Q9wD/g1oFAl3pImkCGQEACgkQTd4Q 9wD/g1o+VA//SFvIHUAvul05u6wKv/pIR6aICPdpF9EIgEU448g+7FfDgQwcEny1pbEzAmiw zAXIQ9H0NZh96lcq+yDLtONnXk/bEYWHHUA014A1wqcYNRY8RvY1+eVHb0uu0KYQoXkzvu+s Dncuguk470XPnscL27hs8PgOP6QjG4jt75K2LfZ0eAqTOUCZTJxA8A7E9+XTYuU0hs7QVrWJ jQdFxQbRMrYz7uP8KmTK9/Cnvqehgl4EzyRaZppshruKMeyheBgvgJd5On1wWq4ZUV5PFM4x II3QbD3EJfWbaJMR55jI9dMFa+vK7MFz3rhWOkEx/QR959lfdRSTXdxs8V3zDvChcmRVGN8U Vo93d1YNtWnA9w6oCW1dnDZ4kgQZZSBIjp6iHcA08apzh7DPi08jL7M9UQByeYGr8KuR4i6e RZI6xhlZerUScVzn35ONwOC91VdYiQgjemiVLq1WDDZ3B7DIzUZ4RQTOaIWdtXBWb8zWakt/ ztGhsx0e39Gvt3391O1PgcA7ilhvqrBPemJrlb9xSPPRbaNAW39P8ws/UJnzSJqnHMVxbRZC Am4add/SM+OCP0w3xYss1jy9T+XdZa0lhUvJfLy7tNcjVG/sxkBXOaSC24MFPuwnoC9WvCVQ ZBxouph3kqc4Dt5X1EeXVLeba+466P1fe1rC8MbcwDkoUo65Ag0EVcufkQEQAOfX3n0g0fZz Bgm/S2zF/kxQKCEKP8ID+Vz8sy2GpDvveBq4H2Y34XWsT1zLJdvqPI4af4ZSMxuerWjXbVWb T6d4odQIG0fKx4F8NccDqbgHeZRNajXeeJ3R7gAzvWvQNLz4piHrO/B4tf8svmRBL0ZB5P5A 2uhdwLU3NZuK22zpNn4is87BPWF8HhY0L5fafgDMOqnf4guJVJPYNPhUFzXUbPqOKOkL8ojk CXxkOFHAbjstSK5Ca3fKquY3rdX3DNo+EL7FvAiw1mUtS+5GeYE+RMnDCsVFm/C7kY8c2d0G NWkB9pJM5+mnIoFNxy7YBcldYATVeOHoY4LyaUWNnAvFYWp08dHWfZo9WCiJMuTfgtH9tc75 7QanMVdPt6fDK8UUXIBLQ2TWr/sQKE9xtFuEmoQGlE1l6bGaDnnMLcYu+Asp3kDT0w4zYGsx 5r6XQVRH4+5N6eHZiaeYtFOujp5n+pjBaQK7wUUjDilPQ5QMzIuCL4YjVoylWiBNknvQWBXS lQCWmavOT9sttGQXdPCC5ynI+1ymZC1ORZKANLnRAb0NH/UCzcsstw2TAkFnMEbo9Zu9w7Kv AxBQXWeXhJI9XQssfrf4Gusdqx8nPEpfOqCtbbwJMATbHyqLt7/oz/5deGuwxgb65pWIzufa N7eop7uh+6bezi+rugUI+w6DABEBAAGJAiUEGAECAA8FAlXLn5ECGwwFCQlmAYAACgkQTd4Q 9wD/g1qA6w/+M+ggFv+JdVsz5+ZIc6MSyGUozASX+bmIuPeIecc9UsFRatc91LuJCKMkD9Uv GOcWSeFpLrSGRQ1Z7EMzFVU//qVs6uzhsNk0RYMyS0B6oloW3FpyQ+zOVylFWQCzoyyf227y GW8HnXunJSC+4PtlL2AY4yZjAVAPLK2l6mhgClVXTQ/S7cBoTQKP+jvVJOoYkpnFxWE9pn4t H5QIFk7Ip8TKr5k3fXVWk4lnUi9MTF/5L/mWqdyIO1s7cjharQCstfWCzWrVeVctpVoDfJWp 4LwTuQ5yEM2KcPeElLg5fR7WB2zH97oI6/Ko2DlovmfQqXh9xWozQt0iGy5tWzh6I0JrlcxJ ileZWLccC4XKD1037Hy2FLAjzfoWgwBLA6ULu0exOOdIa58H4PsXtkFPrUF980EEibUp0zFz GotRVekFAceUaRvAj7dh76cToeZkfsjAvBVb4COXuhgX6N4pofgNkW2AtgYu1nUsPAo+NftU CxrhjHtLn4QEBpkbErnXQyMjHpIatlYGutVMS91XTQXYydCh5crMPs7hYVsvnmGHIaB9ZMfB njnuI31KBiLUks+paRkHQlFcgS2N3gkRBzH7xSZ+t7Re3jvXdXEzKBbQ+dC3lpJB0wPnyMcX FOTT3aZT7IgePkt5iC/BKBk3hqKteTnJFeVIT7EC+a6YUFg= Organization: Red Hat GmbH Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:46:15 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200122183809.GB29276@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 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 22.01.20 19:38, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 22-01-20 19:15:47, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 22.01.20 17:46, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Wed 22-01-20 12:58:16, David Hildenbrand wrote: > [...] >>>> Especially interesting for IBM z Systems, whereby memory >>>> onlining/offlining will trigger the actual population of memory in the >>>> hypervisor. So if an admin wants to offline some memory (to give it back >>>> to the hypervisor), it would use lsmem to identify such blocks first, >>>> instead of trying random blocks until one offlining request succeeds. >>> >>> I am sorry for being dense here but I still do not understand why s390 >> >> It's good that we talk about it :) It's hard to reconstruct actual use >> cases from tools and some documentation only ... >> >> Side note (just FYI): One difference on s390x compared to other >> architectures (AFAIKS) is that once memory is offline, you might not be >> allowed (by the hypervisor) to online it again - because it was >> effectively unplugged. Such memory is not removed via remove_memory(), >> it's simply kept offline. > > I have a very vague understanding of s390 specialities but this is not > really relevant to the discussion AFAICS because this happens _after_ > offlining. Jep, that's why I flagged it as a side note. > >>> and the way how it does the hotremove matters here. Afterall there are >>> no arch specific operations done until the memory is offlined. Also >>> randomly checking memory blocks and then hoping that the offline will >>> succeed is not way much different from just trying the offline the >>> block. Both have to crawl through the pfn range and bail out on the >>> unmovable memory. >> >> I think in general we have to approaches to memory unplugging. >> >> 1. Know explicitly what you want to unplug (e.g., a DIMM spanning >> multiple memory blocks). >> >> 2. Find random memory blocks you can offline/unplug. >> >> >> For 1, I think we both agree that we don't need this. Just try to >> offline and you know if it worked. >> >> Now of course, for 2 you can try random blocks until you succeeded. From >> a sysadmin point of view that's very inefficient. From a powerpc-utils >> point of view, that's inefficient. > > How exactly is check + offline more optimal then offline which makes > check as its first step? I will get to your later points after this is > clarified. Scanning (almost) lockless is more efficient than bouncing back and forth with the device_hotplug_lock, mem_hotplug_lock, cpu_hotplug_lock and zone locks - as far as I understand. And as far as I understood, that was the whole reason of the original commit. Anyhow, you should have read until the end of my mail to find what you were looking for :) -- Thanks, David / dhildenb