Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2, RFC] Driver core: Introduce offline/onlinecallbacks for memory blocks

[Toshi Kani]

On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 02:24 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 05:59:16 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 01:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 04:45:40 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 00:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 03:03:49 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 14:11 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:59:45 PM Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Updated patch is appended for completness.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes, this updated patch solved the locking issue.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > A more general issue is that there are now two memory offlining efforts:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 1) from acpi_bus_offline_companions during device offline
> > > > > > > > > > 2) from mm: remove_memory during device detach (offline_memory_block_cb)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > The 2nd is only called if the device offline operation was already succesful, so
> > > > > > > > > > it seems ineffective or redundant now, at least for x86_64/acpi_memhotplug machine
> > > > > > > > > > (unless the blocks were re-onlined in between).
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Sure, and that should be OK for now.  Changing the detach behavior is not
> > > > > > > > > essential from the patch [2/2] perspective, we can do it later.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > yes, ok.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, the 2nd effort has some more intelligence in offlining, as it
> > > > > > > > > > tries to offline twice in the precense of memcg, see commits df3e1b91 or
> > > > > > > > > > reworked 0baeab16. Maybe we need to consolidate the logic.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Hmm.  Perhaps it would make sense to implement that logic in
> > > > > > > > > memory_subsys_offline(), then?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > the logic tries to offline the memory blocks of the device twice, because the
> > > > > > > > first memory block might be storing information for the subsequent memblocks.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > memory_subsys_offline operates on one memory block at a time. Perhaps we can get
> > > > > > > > the same effect if we do an acpi_walk of acpi_bus_offline_companions twice in
> > > > > > > > acpi_scan_hot_remove but it's probably not a good idea, since that would
> > > > > > > > affect non-memory devices as well. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I am not sure how important this intelligence is in practice (I am not using
> > > > > > > > mem cgroups in my guest kernel tests yet).  Maybe Wen (original author) has
> > > > > > > > more details on 2-pass offlining effectiveness.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > OK
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It may be added in a separate patch in any case.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I had the same comment as Vasilis.  And, I agree with you that we can
> > > > > > enhance it in separate patches.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +static int memory_subsys_offline(struct device *dev)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	struct memory_block *mem = container_of(dev, struct memory_block, dev);
> > > > > > > +	int ret;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +	mutex_lock(&mem->state_mutex);
> > > > > > > +	ret = __memory_block_change_state(mem, MEM_OFFLINE, MEM_ONLINE, -1);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This function needs to check mem->state just like
> > > > > > offline_memory_block().  That is:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 	int ret = 0;
> > > > > > 		:
> > > > > > 	if (mem->state != MEM_OFFLINE)
> > > > > > 		ret = __memory_block_change_state(...);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Otherwise, memory hot-delete to an off-lined memory fails in
> > > > > > __memory_block_change_state() since mem->state is already set to
> > > > > > MEM_OFFLINE.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > With that change, for the series:
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > OK, one more update, then (appended).
> > > > > 
> > > > > That said I thought that the check against dev->offline in device_offline()
> > > > > would be sufficient to guard agaist that.  Is there any "offline" code path
> > > > > I didn't take into account?
> > > > 
> > > > Oh, you are right about that.  The real problem is that dev->offline is
> > > > set to false (0) when a new memory is hot-added in off-line state.  So,
> > > > instead, dev->offline needs to be set properly.  
> > > 
> > > OK, where does that happen?
> > 
> > It's a bit messy, but the following change seems to work.  A tricky part
> > is that online() is not called during boot, so I needed to update the
> > offline flag in __memory_block_change_state().
> 
> I wonder why? ->
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/base/memory.c |    5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
> > index b9dfd34..1c8d781 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
> > @@ -294,8 +294,10 @@ static int __memory_block_change_state(struct
> > memory_block *mem,
> >  		mem->state = from_state_req;
> >  	} else {
> >  		mem->state = to_state;
> > -		if (to_state == MEM_ONLINE)
> > +		if (to_state == MEM_ONLINE) {
> >  			mem->last_online = online_type;
> > +			mem->dev.offline = false;
> > +		}
> 
> ->
> 
> __memory_block_change_state() is called by memory_subsys_online/offline()
> and by __memory_block_change_state_uevent() only, so it should be sufficient
> to do this under the switch () in the latter.
> 
> Still, though, __memory_block_change_state_uevent() is only called (indirectly)
> from store_mem_state() and by offline_memory_block() the both of which update
> dev->offline.
> 
> What's the exact scenario you needed this for?

Right.  I was in hurry and made a wrong assumption...  This change is
not necessary.

> >  	}
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> > @@ -613,6 +615,7 @@ static int init_memory_block(struct memory_block
> > **memory,
> >  	mem->state = state;
> >  	mem->last_online = ONLINE_KEEP;
> >  	mem->section_count++;
> > +	mem->dev.offline = (state == MEM_OFFLINE) ? true : false; 
> 
> You could write this as
> 
> +	mem->dev.offline = state == MEM_OFFLINE; 

Right.

> Moreover, it'd be better to do it in register_memory(), I think.

Yes, if we change register_memory() to have the arg state. 

Thanks,
-Toshi


> 
> >  	mutex_init(&mem->state_mutex);
> >  	start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem->start_section_nr);
> >  	mem->phys_device = arch_get_memory_phys_device(start_pfn);
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 
> 


--
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/