[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50EE57F7.1000304@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:56:07 +0800
From: Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: rientjes@...gle.com, len.brown@...el.com, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
paulus@...ba.org, cl@...ux.com, minchan.kim@...il.com,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com,
wujianguo@...wei.com, wency@...fujitsu.com, hpa@...or.com,
linfeng@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com, mgorman@...e.de,
yinghai@...nel.org, glommer@...allels.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, cmetcalf@...era.com,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/15] memory-hotplug: check whether all memory blocks
are offlined or not when removing memory
Hi Andrew,
On 01/10/2013 07:11 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 17:32:26 +0800
> Tang Chen<tangchen@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> We remove the memory like this:
>> 1. lock memory hotplug
>> 2. offline a memory block
>> 3. unlock memory hotplug
>> 4. repeat 1-3 to offline all memory blocks
>> 5. lock memory hotplug
>> 6. remove memory(TODO)
>> 7. unlock memory hotplug
>>
>> All memory blocks must be offlined before removing memory. But we don't hold
>> the lock in the whole operation. So we should check whether all memory blocks
>> are offlined before step6. Otherwise, kernel maybe panicked.
>
> Well, the obvious question is: why don't we hold lock_memory_hotplug()
> for all of steps 1-4? Please send the reasons for this in a form which
> I can paste into the changelog.
In the changelog form:
Offlining a memory block and removing a memory device can be two
different operations. Users can just offline some memory blocks
without removing the memory device. For this purpose, the kernel has
held lock_memory_hotplug() in __offline_pages(). To reuse the code
for memory hot-remove, we repeat step 1-3 to offline all the memory
blocks, repeatedly lock and unlock memory hotplug, but not hold the
memory hotplug lock in the whole operation.
>
>
> Actually, I wonder if doing this would fix a race in the current
> remove_memory() repeat: loop. That code does a
> find_memory_block_hinted() followed by offline_memory_block(), but
> afaict find_memory_block_hinted() only does a get_device(). Is the
> get_device() sufficiently strong to prevent problems if another thread
> concurrently offlines or otherwise alters this memory_block's state?
I think we already have memory_block->state_mutex to protect the
concurrently changing of memory_block's state.
The find_memory_block_hinted() here is to find the memory_block
corresponding to the memory section we are dealing with.
Thanks. :)
>
--
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