Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] arm64/mm/hotplug: Enable MEM_OFFLINE event handling
From: Anshuman Khandual
Date: Wed Sep 23 2020 - 23:51:54 EST
On 09/23/2020 12:01 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
> Hi Anshuman,
>
> On 9/21/20 10:05 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> This enables MEM_OFFLINE memory event handling. It will help intercept any
>> possible error condition such as if boot memory some how still got offlined
>> even after an explicit notifier failure, potentially by a future change in
>> generic hot plug framework. This would help detect such scenarios and help
>> debug further.
>>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>
> I'm not sure if it makes sense since MEM_OFFLINE won't be triggered
> after NOTIFY_BAD is returned from MEM_GOING_OFFLINE. NOTIFY_BAD means
> the whole offline process is stopped. It would be guranteed by generic
> framework from syntax standpoint.
Right but the intent here is to catch any deviation in generic hotplug
semantics going forward.
>
> However, this looks good if MEM_OFFLINE is triggered without calling
> into MEM_GOING_OFFLINE previously, but it would be a bug from generic
> framework.
Exactly, this will just ensure that we know about any change or a bug
in the generic framework. But if required, this additional check can
be enabled only with DEBUG_VM.
>
>> arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> index df3b7415b128..6b171bd88bcf 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> @@ -1482,13 +1482,40 @@ static int prevent_bootmem_remove_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
>> unsigned long end_pfn = arg->start_pfn + arg->nr_pages;
>> unsigned long pfn = arg->start_pfn;
>> - if (action != MEM_GOING_OFFLINE)
>> + if ((action != MEM_GOING_OFFLINE) && (action != MEM_OFFLINE))
>> return NOTIFY_OK;
>> - for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
>> - ms = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
>> - if (early_section(ms))
>> - return NOTIFY_BAD;
>> + if (action == MEM_GOING_OFFLINE) {
>> + for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
>> + ms = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
>> + if (early_section(ms)) {
>> + pr_warn("Boot memory offlining attempted\n");
>> + return NOTIFY_BAD;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + } else if (action == MEM_OFFLINE) {
>> + for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
>> + ms = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
>> + if (early_section(ms)) {
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * This should have never happened. Boot memory
>> + * offlining should have been prevented by this
>> + * very notifier. Probably some memory removal
>> + * procedure might have changed which would then
>> + * require further debug.
>> + */
>> + pr_err("Boot memory offlined\n");
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Core memory hotplug does not process a return
>> + * code from the notifier for MEM_OFFLINE event.
>> + * Error condition has been reported. Report as
>> + * ignored.
>> + */
>> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
>> + }
>> + }
>> }
>> return NOTIFY_OK;
>> }
>>
>
> It's pretty much irrelevant comment if the patch doesn't make sense:
> the logical block for MEM_GOING_OFFLINE would be reused by MEM_OFFLINE
> as they looks similar except the return value and error message :)
This can be reorganized in the above mentioned format as well. Without
much additional code or iteration, it might not need DEBUG_VM as well.
for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
ms = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
if (!early_section(ms))
continue;
if (action == MEM_GOING_OFFLINE) {
pr_warn("Boot memory offlining attempted\n");
return NOTIFY_BAD;
}
else if (action == MEM_OFFLINE) {
pr_err("Boot memory offlined\n");
return NOTIFY_DONE;
}
}
return NOTIFY_OK;