Re: [Part3 PATCH v2 0/4] Support hot-remove local pagetable pages.
From: Toshi Kani
Date: Tue Jun 18 2013 - 20:00:20 EST
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 19:05 +0200, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 09:03:52PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> > The following patch-set from Yinghai allocates pagetables to local nodes.
> > v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/7/642
> > v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/10/47
> > v3: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/4/639
> > v4: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/11/829
> > Since pagetable pages are used by the kernel, they cannot be offlined.
> > As a result, they cannot be hot-remove.
> > This patch fix this problem with the following solution:
> > 1. Introduce a new bootmem type LOCAL_NODE_DATAL, and register local
> > pagetable pages as LOCAL_NODE_DATAL by setting page->lru.next to
> > LOCAL_NODE_DATAL, just like we register SECTION_INFO pages.
> > 2. Skip LOCAL_NODE_DATAL pages in offline/online procedures. When the
> > whole memory block they reside in is offlined, the kernel can
> > still access the pagetables.
> > (This changes the semantics of offline/online a little bit.)
> This could be a design problem of part3: if we allow local pagetable memory
> to not be offlined but allow the offlining to return successfully, then
> hot-remove is going to succeed. But the direct mapped pagetable pages are still
> mapped in the kernel. The hot-removed memblocks will suddenly disappear (think
> physical DIMMs getting disabled in real hardware, or in a VM case the
> corresponding guest memory getting freed from the emulator e.g. qemu/kvm). The
> system can crash as a result.
> I think these local pagetables do need to be unmapped from kernel, offlined and
> removed somehow - otherwise hot-remove should fail. Could they be migrated
> alternatively e.g. to node 0 memory? But Iiuc direct mapped pages cannot be
> migrated, correct?
> What is the original reason for local node pagetable allocation with regards
> to memory hotplug? I assume we want to have hotplugged nodes use only their local
> memory, so that there are no inter-node memory dependencies for hot-add/remove.
> Are there other reasons that I am missing?
I second Vasilis. The part1/2/3 series could be much simpler & less
riskier if we focus on the SRAT changes first, and make the local node
pagetable changes as a separate item. Is there particular reason why
they have to be done at a same time?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/