linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hibernate / memory hotplug: always use for_each_populated

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200907211611.09525.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:11:08 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>,
	Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hibernate / memory hotplug: always use for_each_populated_zone()

On Tuesday 21 July 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:15:08 +0200
> Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 07:29:58AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > > 
> > > Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> > > > From: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Use for_each_populated_zone() instead of for_each_zone() in hibernation
> > > > code. This fixes a bug on s390, where we allow both config options
> > > > HIBERNATION and MEMORY_HOTPLUG, so that we also have a ZONE_MOVABLE
> > > > here. We only allow hibernation if no memory hotplug operation was
> > > > performed, so in fact both features can only be used exclusively, but
> > > > this way we don't need 2 differently configured (distribution) kernels.
> > > > 
> > > > If we have an unpopulated ZONE_MOVABLE, we allow hibernation but run
> > > > into a BUG_ON() in memory_bm_test/set/clear_bit() because hibernation
> > > > code iterates through all zones, not only the populated zones, in
> > > > several places. For example, swsusp_free() does for_each_zone() and
> > > > then checks for pfn_valid(), which is true even if the zone is not
> > > > populated, resulting in a BUG_ON() later because the pfn cannot be
> > > > found in the memory bitmap.
> > > 
> > > I agree with your logic and patch, but doesn't this also imply that the
> > > s390 implementation pfn_valid should be changed to return false for
> > > those pages?
> > 
> > For CONFIG_SPARSEMEM, which s390 uses, there is no architecture specific
> > pfn_valid() implementation.
> > Also it looks like the semantics of pfn_valid() aren't clear.
> > At least for sparsemem it means nothing but "the memmap for the section
> > this page belongs to exists". So it just means the struct page for the
> > pfn exists.
> 
> Historically, pfn_valid() just means "there is a memmap." no other meanings
> in any configs/archs.

Is this documented anywhere actually?

> > We still have pfn_present() for CONFIG_SPARSEMEM. But that just means
> > "some pages in the section this pfn belongs to are present."
> 
> It just exists for sparsemem internal purpose IIUC.
> 
> 
> > So it looks like checking for pfn_valid() and afterwards checking
> > for PG_Reserved (?) might give what one would expect.
> I think so, too. If memory is offline, PG_reserved is always set.
> 
> In general, it's expected that "page is contiguous in MAX_ORDER range"
> and no memory holes in MAX_ORDER. In most case, PG_reserved is checked
> for skipping not-existing memory.

PG_reserved is also set for kernel text, at least on some architectures, and
for some other areas that we want to save.

> > Looks all a bit confusing to me.
> > Or maybe it's just me who is confused? :)
> > 
> IIRC, there are no generic interface to know whether there is a physical page.

We need to know that for hibernation, though.

Well, there is a mechanism for marking making address ranges that are never
to be saved, but they need to be known during initialisation already.

> pfn_valid() is only for memmap and people have used
> 	if (pfn_valid(pfn) && !PageReserved(page))
> check.
> But, hmm, If hibernation have to save PG_reserved memory, general solution is
> use copy_user_page() and handle fault.

That's not exactly straightforward IMHO.

> Alternative is making use of walk_memory_resource() as memory hotplug does.
> It checks resource information registered.

I'd be fine with any _simple_ mechanism allowing us to check whether there's
a physical page frame for given page (or given PFN).

Best,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/