Re: [PATCH RFCv2 3/6] mm/memory_hotplug: fix online/offline_pages called w.o. mem_hotplug_lock
From: Pasha Tatashin
Date: Thu Aug 30 2018 - 15:37:42 EST
On 8/21/18 6:44 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> There seem to be some problems as result of 30467e0b3be ("mm, hotplug:
> fix concurrent memory hot-add deadlock"), which tried to fix a possible
> lock inversion reported and discussed in  due to the two locks
> a) device_lock()
> b) mem_hotplug_lock
> While add_memory() first takes b), followed by a) during
> bus_probe_device(), onlining of memory from user space first took b),
> followed by a), exposing a possible deadlock.
> In , and it was decided to not make use of device_hotplug_lock, but
> rather to enforce a locking order.
> The problems I spotted related to this:
> 1. Memory block device attributes: While .state first calls
> mem_hotplug_begin() and the calls device_online() - which takes
> device_lock() - .online does no longer call mem_hotplug_begin(), so
> effectively calls online_pages() without mem_hotplug_lock.
> 2. device_online() should be called under device_hotplug_lock, however
> onlining memory during add_memory() does not take care of that.
> In addition, I think there is also something wrong about the locking in
> 3. arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/memtrace.c calls offline_pages()
> without locks. This was introduced after 30467e0b3be. And skimming over
> the code, I assume it could need some more care in regards to locking
> (e.g. device_online() called without device_hotplug_lock - but I'll
> not touch that for now).
> Now that we hold the device_hotplug_lock when
> - adding memory (e.g. via add_memory()/add_memory_resource())
> - removing memory (e.g. via remove_memory())
> - device_online()/device_offline()
> We can move mem_hotplug_lock usage back into
> Why is mem_hotplug_lock still needed? Essentially to make
> get_online_mems()/put_online_mems() be very fast (relying on
> device_hotplug_lock would be very slow), and to serialize against
> addition of memory that does not create memory block devices (hmm).
>  http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/ driverdev-devel/
> This patch is partly based on a patch by Vitaly Kuznetsov.
Reviewed-by: Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>