Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Export generic_online_page()

[Michal Hocko]

On Mon 23-09-19 11:31:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 23.09.19 10:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 20-09-19 10:17:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 09.09.19 13:48, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> Based on linux/next + "[PATCH 0/3] Remove __online_page_set_limits()"
> >>>
> >>> Let's replace the __online_page...() functions by generic_online_page().
> >>> Hyper-V only wants to delay the actual onlining of un-backed pages, so we
> >>> can simpy re-use the generic function.
> >>>
> >>> Only compile-tested.
> >>>
> >>> Cc: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> David Hildenbrand (3):
> >>>   mm/memory_hotplug: Export generic_online_page()
> >>>   hv_balloon: Use generic_online_page()
> >>>   mm/memory_hotplug: Remove __online_page_free() and
> >>>     __online_page_increment_counters()
> >>>
> >>>  drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c        |  3 +--
> >>>  include/linux/memory_hotplug.h |  4 +---
> >>>  mm/memory_hotplug.c            | 17 ++---------------
> >>>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ping, any comments on this one?
> > 
> > Unification makes a lot of sense to me. You can add
> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > I will most likely won't surprise if I asked for more here though ;)
> 
> I'm not surprised, but definitely not in a negative sense ;) I was
> asking myself if we could somehow rework this, too.
> 
> > I have to confess I really detest the whole concept of a hidden callback
> > with a very weird API. Is this something we can do about? I do realize
> > that adding a callback would require either cluttering the existing APIs
> > but maybe we can come up with something more clever. Or maybe existing
> > external users of online callback can do that as a separate step after
> > the online is completed - or is this impossible due to locking
> > guarantees?
> > 
> 
> The use case of this (somewhat special) callback really is to avoid
> selected (unbacked in the hypervisor) pages to get put to the buddy just
> now, but instead to defer that (sometimes, defer till infinity ;) ).
> Especially, to hinder these pages from getting touched at all. Pages
> that won't be put to the buddy will usually get PG_offline set (e.g.,
> Hyper-V and XEN) - the only two users I am aware of.
> 
> For Hyper-V (and also eventually virtio-mem), it is important to set
> PG_offline before marking the section to be online (SECTION_IS_ONLINE).
> Only this way, PG_offline is properly set on all pfn_to_online_page()
> pages, meaning "don't touch this page" - e.g., used to skip over such
> pages when suspending or by makedumpfile to skip over such offline pages
> when creating a memory dump.

Thanks for the clarification. I have never really studied what those
callbacks are doing really.

> So if we would e.g., try to piggy-back onto the memory_notify()
> infrastructure, we could
> 1. Online all pages to the buddy (dropping the callback)
> 2. E.g., memory_notify(MEM_ONLINE_PAGES, &arg);
> -> in the notifier, pull pages from the buddy, mark sections online
> 3. Set all involved sections online (online_mem_sections())

This doesn't really sound any better. For one pages are immediately
usable when they hit the buddy allocator so this is racy and thus not
reliable.

> However, I am not sure what actually happens after 1. - we are only
> holding the device hotplug lock and the memory hotplug lock, so the
> pages can just get allocated. Also, it sounds like more work and code
> for the same end result (okay, if the rework is really necessary, though).
> 
> So yeah, while the current callback might not be optimal, I don't see an
> easy and clean way to rework this. With the change in this series we are
> at least able to simply defer doing what would have been done without
> the callback - not perfect but better.
> 
> Do you have anything in mind that could work out and make this nicer?

I am wondering why those pages get onlined when they are, in fact,
supposed to be offline.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs