Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] mm/memory_hotplug: split memmap_on_memory requests across memblocks

[David Hildenbrand]

On 03.10.23 22:03, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-10-02 at 11:28 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > +
> > > +static int __ref try_remove_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
> > > +{
> > > +       int rc, nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> > > +
> > > +       BUG_ON(check_hotplug_memory_range(start, size));
> > > +
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * All memory blocks must be offlined before removing memory.  Check
> > > +        * whether all memory blocks in question are offline and return error
> > > +        * if this is not the case.
> > > +        *
> > > +        * While at it, determine the nid. Note that if we'd have mixed nodes,
> > > +        * we'd only try to offline the last determined one -- which is good
> > > +        * enough for the cases we care about.
> > > +        */
> > > +       rc = walk_memory_blocks(start, size, &nid, check_memblock_offlined_cb);
> > > +       if (rc)
> > > +               return rc;
> > > +
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * For memmap_on_memory, the altmaps could have been added on
> > > +        * a per-memblock basis. Loop through the entire range if so,
> > > +        * and remove each memblock and its altmap.
> > > +        */
> > > +       if (mhp_memmap_on_memory()) {
> > > +               unsigned long memblock_size = memory_block_size_bytes();
> > > +               u64 cur_start;
> > > +
> > > +               for (cur_start = start; cur_start < start + size;
> > > +                    cur_start += memblock_size)
> > > +                       __try_remove_memory(nid, cur_start, memblock_size);
> > > +       } else {
> > > +               __try_remove_memory(nid, start, size);
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > >          return 0;
> > >    }
> >
> > Why is the firmware, memblock and nid handling not kept in this outer
> > function?
> >
> > We really shouldn't be doing per memory block what needs to be done per
> > memblock: remove_memory_block_devices() and arch_remove_memory().
>
>
> Ah yes makes sense since we only do create_memory_block_devices() and
> arch_add_memory() in the per memory block inner loop during addition.
>
> How should the locking work in this case though?

Sorry, I had to process a family NMI the last couple of days.

> The original code holds the mem_hotplug_begin() lock over
> arch_remove_memory() and all of the nid and memblock stuff. Should I
> just hold the lock and release it in the inner loop for each memory
> block, and then also acquire and release it separately for the memblock
> and nid stuff in the outer function?

I think we have to hold it over the whole operation.

I saw that you sent a v5, I'll comment there.


--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb