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: <20100716090637.3654f91d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:06:37 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] v2 Split the memory_block structure

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:37:51 -0500
Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com> wrote:

> Split the memory_block struct into a memory_block
> struct to cover each sysfs directory and a new memory_block_section
> struct for each memory section covered by the sysfs directory.
> This change allows for creation of memory sysfs directories that
> can span multiple memory sections.
> 
> This can be beneficial in that it can reduce the number of memory
> sysfs directories created at boot.  This also allows different
> architectures to define how many memory sections are covered by
> a sysfs directory.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/memory.c  |  222 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  include/linux/memory.h |   11 +-
>  2 files changed, 167 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/base/memory.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/memory.c	2010-07-15 08:48:41.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/memory.c	2010-07-15 09:55:54.000000000 -0500
> @@ -28,6 +28,14 @@
>  #include <asm/uaccess.h>
>  
>  #define MEMORY_CLASS_NAME	"memory"
> +#define MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE	(1 << SECTION_SIZE_BITS)
> +
> +static int sections_per_block;
> +
> +static inline int base_memory_block_id(int section_nr)
> +{
> +	return (section_nr / sections_per_block) * sections_per_block;
> +}
>  
>  static struct sysdev_class memory_sysdev_class = {
>  	.name = MEMORY_CLASS_NAME,
> @@ -94,10 +102,9 @@
>  }
>  
>  static void
> -unregister_memory(struct memory_block *memory, struct mem_section *section)
> +unregister_memory(struct memory_block *memory)
>  {
>  	BUG_ON(memory->sysdev.cls != &memory_sysdev_class);
> -	BUG_ON(memory->sysdev.id != __section_nr(section));
>  
>  	/* drop the ref. we got in remove_memory_block() */
>  	kobject_put(&memory->sysdev.kobj);
> @@ -123,13 +130,20 @@
>  static ssize_t show_mem_removable(struct sys_device *dev,
>  			struct sysdev_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>  {
> +	struct memory_block *mem;
> +	struct memory_block_section *mbs;
>  	unsigned long start_pfn;
> -	int ret;
> -	struct memory_block *mem =
> -		container_of(dev, struct memory_block, sysdev);
> +	int ret = 1;
> +
> +	mem = container_of(dev, struct memory_block, sysdev);
> +	mutex_lock(&mem->state_mutex);
>  
> -	start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem->phys_index);
> -	ret = is_mem_section_removable(start_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
> +	list_for_each_entry(mbs, &mem->sections, next) {
> +		start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mbs->phys_index);
> +		ret &= is_mem_section_removable(start_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
> +	}
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&mem->state_mutex);

Hmm, this means memory cab be offlined the while memory block section. Right ?
Please write this fact in patch description...
And Documentaion/memory_hotplug.txt as "From user's perspective, memory section
is not a unit of memory hotplug anymore".
And descirbe about a new rule.


>  	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", ret);
>  }
>  
> @@ -182,16 +196,16 @@
>   * OK to have direct references to sparsemem variables in here.
>   */
>  static int
> -memory_block_action(struct memory_block *mem, unsigned long action)
> +memory_block_action(struct memory_block_section *mbs, unsigned long action)
>  {
>  	int i;
>  	unsigned long psection;
>  	unsigned long start_pfn, start_paddr;
>  	struct page *first_page;
>  	int ret;
> -	int old_state = mem->state;
> +	int old_state = mbs->state;
>  
> -	psection = mem->phys_index;
> +	psection = mbs->phys_index;
>  	first_page = pfn_to_page(psection << PFN_SECTION_SHIFT);
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -217,18 +231,18 @@
>  			ret = online_pages(start_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
>  			break;
>  		case MEM_OFFLINE:
> -			mem->state = MEM_GOING_OFFLINE;
> +			mbs->state = MEM_GOING_OFFLINE;
>  			start_paddr = page_to_pfn(first_page) << PAGE_SHIFT;
>  			ret = remove_memory(start_paddr,
>  					    PAGES_PER_SECTION << PAGE_SHIFT);
>  			if (ret) {
> -				mem->state = old_state;
> +				mbs->state = old_state;
>  				break;
>  			}
>  			break;
>  		default:
>  			WARN(1, KERN_WARNING "%s(%p, %ld) unknown action: %ld\n",
> -					__func__, mem, action, action);
> +					__func__, mbs, action, action);
>  			ret = -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -238,19 +252,34 @@

And please check quilt's diff option.
Usual patche in ML shows a function name in any changes, as
@@ -241,6 +293,8 @@ static int memory_block_change_state(str

Maybe "-p" option is lacked..


>  static int memory_block_change_state(struct memory_block *mem,
>  		unsigned long to_state, unsigned long from_state_req)
>  {
> +	struct memory_block_section *mbs;
>  	int ret = 0;
> +
>  	mutex_lock(&mem->state_mutex);
>  
> -	if (mem->state != from_state_req) {
> -		ret = -EINVAL;
> -		goto out;
> +	list_for_each_entry(mbs, &mem->sections, next) {
> +		if (mbs->state != from_state_req)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		ret = memory_block_action(mbs, to_state);
> +		if (ret)
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (ret) {
> +		list_for_each_entry(mbs, &mem->sections, next) {
> +			if (mbs->state == from_state_req)
> +				continue;
> +
> +			if (memory_block_action(mbs, to_state))
> +				printk(KERN_ERR "Could not re-enable memory "
> +				       "section %lx\n", mbs->phys_index);

Why re-enable only ? online->fail->offline never happens ?
If so, please add comment at least.
BTW, is it guaranteed that all sections under a block has same state after
boot ?

> +		}
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = memory_block_action(mem, to_state);
>  	if (!ret)
>  		mem->state = to_state;
>  
> -out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&mem->state_mutex);
>  	return ret;
>  }
> @@ -260,20 +289,15 @@
>  		struct sysdev_attribute *attr, const char *buf, size_t count)
>  {
>  	struct memory_block *mem;
> -	unsigned int phys_section_nr;
>  	int ret = -EINVAL;
>  
>  	mem = container_of(dev, struct memory_block, sysdev);
> -	phys_section_nr = mem->phys_index;
> -
> -	if (!present_section_nr(phys_section_nr))
> -		goto out;
> 
I'm sorry but I couldn't remember why this check was necessary...


 
>  	if (!strncmp(buf, "online", min((int)count, 6)))
>  		ret = memory_block_change_state(mem, MEM_ONLINE, MEM_OFFLINE);
>  	else if(!strncmp(buf, "offline", min((int)count, 7)))
>  		ret = memory_block_change_state(mem, MEM_OFFLINE, MEM_ONLINE);
> -out:
> +
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  	return count;
> @@ -435,39 +459,6 @@
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int add_memory_block(int nid, struct mem_section *section,
> -			unsigned long state, enum mem_add_context context)
> -{
> -	struct memory_block *mem = kzalloc(sizeof(*mem), GFP_KERNEL);
> -	unsigned long start_pfn;
> -	int ret = 0;
> -
> -	if (!mem)
> -		return -ENOMEM;
> -
> -	mem->phys_index = __section_nr(section);
> -	mem->state = state;
> -	mutex_init(&mem->state_mutex);
> -	start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem->phys_index);
> -	mem->phys_device = arch_get_memory_phys_device(start_pfn);
> -
> -	ret = register_memory(mem, section);
> -	if (!ret)
> -		ret = mem_create_simple_file(mem, phys_index);
> -	if (!ret)
> -		ret = mem_create_simple_file(mem, state);
> -	if (!ret)
> -		ret = mem_create_simple_file(mem, phys_device);
> -	if (!ret)
> -		ret = mem_create_simple_file(mem, removable);
> -	if (!ret) {
> -		if (context == HOTPLUG)
> -			ret = register_mem_sect_under_node(mem, nid);
> -	}
> -
> -	return ret;
> -}
> -

I don't say strongly but this kind of move-code should be done in another patch.


>  /*
>   * For now, we have a linear search to go find the appropriate
>   * memory_block corresponding to a particular phys_index. If
> @@ -482,12 +473,13 @@
>  	struct sys_device *sysdev;
>  	struct memory_block *mem;
>  	char name[sizeof(MEMORY_CLASS_NAME) + 9 + 1];
> +	int block_id = base_memory_block_id(__section_nr(section));
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * This only works because we know that section == sysdev->id
>  	 * slightly redundant with sysdev_register()
>  	 */
> -	sprintf(&name[0], "%s%d", MEMORY_CLASS_NAME, __section_nr(section));
> +	sprintf(&name[0], "%s%d", MEMORY_CLASS_NAME, block_id);
>  
>  	kobj = kset_find_obj(&memory_sysdev_class.kset, name);
>  	if (!kobj)
> @@ -499,18 +491,98 @@
>  	return mem;
>  }
>  
> +static int add_mem_block_section(struct memory_block *mem,
> +				 int section_nr, unsigned long state)
> +{
> +	struct memory_block_section *mbs;
> +
> +	mbs = kzalloc(sizeof(*mbs), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!mbs)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	mbs->phys_index = section_nr;
> +	mbs->state = state;
> +
> +	list_add(&mbs->next, &mem->sections);
> +	return 0;
> +}

Doesn't this "sections" need to be sorted ? Hmm.


> +
> +static int add_memory_block(int nid, struct mem_section *section,
> +			unsigned long state, enum mem_add_context context)
> +{
> +	struct memory_block *mem;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	mem = find_memory_block(section);
> +	if (!mem) {
> +		unsigned long start_pfn;
> +
> +		mem = kzalloc(sizeof(*mem), GFP_KERNEL);
> +		if (!mem)
> +			return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +		mem->state = state;
> +		mutex_init(&mem->state_mutex);
> +		start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(__section_nr(section));
> +		mem->phys_device = arch_get_memory_phys_device(start_pfn);
> +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mem->sections);
> +
> +		mutex_lock(&mem->state_mutex);
> +
> +		ret = register_memory(mem, section);
> +		if (!ret)
> +			ret = mem_create_simple_file(mem, phys_index);
> +		if (!ret)
> +			ret = mem_create_simple_file(mem, state);
> +		if (!ret)
> +			ret = mem_create_simple_file(mem, phys_device);
> +		if (!ret)
> +			ret = mem_create_simple_file(mem, removable);
> +		if (!ret) {
> +			if (context == HOTPLUG)
> +				ret = register_mem_sect_under_node(mem, nid);
> +		}
> +	} else {
> +		kobject_put(&mem->sysdev.kobj);
> +		mutex_lock(&mem->state_mutex);
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!ret)
> +		ret = add_mem_block_section(mem, __section_nr(section), state);
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&mem->state_mutex);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>  int remove_memory_block(unsigned long node_id, struct mem_section *section,
>  		int phys_device)
>  {
>  	struct memory_block *mem;
> +	struct memory_block_section *mbs, *tmp;
> +	int section_nr = __section_nr(section);
>  
>  	mem = find_memory_block(section);
> -	unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(mem);
> -	mem_remove_simple_file(mem, phys_index);
> -	mem_remove_simple_file(mem, state);
> -	mem_remove_simple_file(mem, phys_device);
> -	mem_remove_simple_file(mem, removable);
> -	unregister_memory(mem, section);
> +	mutex_lock(&mem->state_mutex);
> +
> +	/* remove the specified section */
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(mbs, tmp, &mem->sections, next) {
> +		if (mbs->phys_index == section_nr) {
> +			list_del(&mbs->next);
> +			kfree(mbs);
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&mem->state_mutex);
> +
> +	if (list_empty(&mem->sections)) {
> +		unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(mem);
> +		mem_remove_simple_file(mem, phys_index);
> +		mem_remove_simple_file(mem, state);
> +		mem_remove_simple_file(mem, phys_device);
> +		mem_remove_simple_file(mem, removable);
> +		unregister_memory(mem);
> +		kfree(mem);
> +	}
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -532,6 +604,24 @@
>  	return remove_memory_block(0, section, 0);
>  }
>  
> +u32 __weak memory_block_size(void)
> +{
> +	return MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE;
> +}
> +
> +static u32 get_memory_block_size(void)
> +{
> +	u32 blk_sz;
> +
> +	blk_sz = memory_block_size();
> +
> +	/* Validate blk_sz is a power of 2 and not less than section size */
> +	if ((blk_sz & (blk_sz - 1)) || (blk_sz < MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE))
> +		blk_sz = MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE;
> +
> +	return blk_sz;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Initialize the sysfs support for memory devices...
>   */
> @@ -540,12 +630,16 @@
>  	unsigned int i;
>  	int ret;
>  	int err;
> +	int block_sz;
>  
>  	memory_sysdev_class.kset.uevent_ops = &memory_uevent_ops;
>  	ret = sysdev_class_register(&memory_sysdev_class);
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto out;
>  
> +	block_sz = get_memory_block_size();
> +	sections_per_block = block_sz / MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Create entries for memory sections that were found
>  	 * during boot and have been initialized
> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/memory.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/memory.h	2010-07-15 08:48:41.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/memory.h	2010-07-15 09:54:06.000000000 -0500
> @@ -19,9 +19,15 @@
>  #include <linux/node.h>
>  #include <linux/compiler.h>
>  #include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/list.h>
>  
> -struct memory_block {
> +struct memory_block_section {
> +	unsigned long state;
>  	unsigned long phys_index;
> +	struct list_head next;
> +};
> +
> +struct memory_block {
>  	unsigned long state;
>  	/*
>  	 * This serializes all state change requests.  It isn't
> @@ -34,6 +40,7 @@
>  	void *hw;			/* optional pointer to fw/hw data */
>  	int (*phys_callback)(struct memory_block *);
>  	struct sys_device sysdev;
> +	struct list_head sections;
>  };
>  
>  int arch_get_memory_phys_device(unsigned long start_pfn);
> @@ -113,7 +120,7 @@
>  extern int remove_memory_block(unsigned long, struct mem_section *, int);
>  extern int memory_notify(unsigned long val, void *v);
>  extern int memory_isolate_notify(unsigned long val, void *v);
> -extern struct memory_block *find_memory_block(unsigned long);
> +extern struct memory_block *find_memory_block(struct mem_section *);
>  extern int memory_is_hidden(struct mem_section *);
>  #define CONFIG_MEM_BLOCK_SIZE	(PAGES_PER_SECTION<<PAGE_SHIFT)
>  enum mem_add_context { BOOT, HOTPLUG };
> 

Okay, please go ahead. But my 1st impression is that IBM should increase ppc's
SECTION_SIZE ;)

Thanks,
-Kame


 

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ