Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] powerpc/pseries/hotplug-memory: stop checking is_mem_section_removable()

[piliu]

On 04/08/2020 10:46 AM, Baoquan He wrote:
> Add Pingfan to CC since he usually handles ppc related bugs for RHEL.
> 
> On 04/07/20 at 03:54pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> In commit 53cdc1cb29e8 ("drivers/base/memory.c: indicate all memory
>> blocks as removable"), the user space interface to compute whether a memory
>> block can be offlined (exposed via
>> /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryX/removable) has effectively been
>> deprecated. We want to remove the leftovers of the kernel implementation.
> 
> Pingfan, can you have a look at this change on PPC?  Please feel free to
> give comments if any concern, or offer ack if it's OK to you.
> 
>>
>> When offlining a memory block (mm/memory_hotplug.c:__offline_pages()),
>> we'll start by:
>> 1. Testing if it contains any holes, and reject if so
>> 2. Testing if pages belong to different zones, and reject if so
>> 3. Isolating the page range, checking if it contains any unmovable pages
>>
>> Using is_mem_section_removable() before trying to offline is not only racy,
>> it can easily result in false positives/negatives. Let's stop manually
>> checking is_mem_section_removable(), and let device_offline() handle it
>> completely instead. We can remove the racy is_mem_section_removable()
>> implementation next.
>>
>> We now take more locks (e.g., memory hotplug lock when offlining and the
>> zone lock when isolating), but maybe we should optimize that
>> implementation instead if this ever becomes a real problem (after all,
>> memory unplug is already an expensive operation). We started using
>> is_mem_section_removable() in commit 51925fb3c5c9 ("powerpc/pseries:
>> Implement memory hotplug remove in the kernel"), with the initial
>> hotremove support of lmbs.
>>
>> Cc: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  .../platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c        | 26 +++----------------
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c
>> index b2cde1732301..5ace2f9a277e 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c
>> @@ -337,39 +337,19 @@ static int pseries_remove_mem_node(struct device_node *np)
>>  
>>  static bool lmb_is_removable(struct drmem_lmb *lmb)
>>  {
>> -	int i, scns_per_block;
>> -	bool rc = true;
>> -	unsigned long pfn, block_sz;
>> -	u64 phys_addr;
>> -
>>  	if (!(lmb->flags & DRCONF_MEM_ASSIGNED))
>>  		return false;
>>  
>> -	block_sz = memory_block_size_bytes();
>> -	scns_per_block = block_sz / MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE;
>> -	phys_addr = lmb->base_addr;
>> -
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_FA_DUMP
>>  	/*
>>  	 * Don't hot-remove memory that falls in fadump boot memory area
>>  	 * and memory that is reserved for capturing old kernel memory.
>>  	 */
>> -	if (is_fadump_memory_area(phys_addr, block_sz))
>> +	if (is_fadump_memory_area(lmb->base_addr, memory_block_size_bytes()))
>>  		return false;
>>  #endif
>> -
>> -	for (i = 0; i < scns_per_block; i++) {
>> -		pfn = PFN_DOWN(phys_addr);
>> -		if (!pfn_in_present_section(pfn)) {
>> -			phys_addr += MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE;
>> -			continue;
>> -		}
>> -
>> -		rc = rc && is_mem_section_removable(pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
>> -		phys_addr += MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE;
>> -	}
>> -
>> -	return rc;
>> +	/* device_offline() will determine if we can actually remove this lmb */
>> +	return true;
So I think here swaps the check and do sequence. At least it breaks
dlpar_memory_remove_by_count(). It is doable to remove
is_mem_section_removable(), but here should be more effort to re-arrange
the code.

Thanks,
Pingfan
>>  }
>>  
>>  static int dlpar_add_lmb(struct drmem_lmb *);
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>