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: <20170310190037.fifahjd47joim6zy@arbab-laptop>
Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:00:37 -0600
From:   Reza Arbab <arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, qiuxishi@...wei.com,
        toshi.kani@....com, xieyisheng1@...wei.com, slaoub@...il.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        Zhang Zhen <zhenzhang.zhang@...wei.com>,
        Yasuaki Ishimatsu <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
        Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: WTH is going on with memory hotplug sysf interface (was: Re:
 [RFC PATCH] mm, hotplug: get rid of auto_online_blocks)

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 04:53:33PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>OK, so while I was playing with this setup some more I probably got why
>this is done this way. All new memblocks are added to the zone Normal
>where they are accounted as spanned but not present.

It's not always zone Normal. See zone_for_memory(). This leads to a 
workaround for having to do online_movable in descending block order. 
Instead of this:

1. probe block 34, probe block 33, probe block 32, ...
2. online_movable 34, online_movable 33, online_movable 32, ...

you can online_movable the first block before adding the rest:

1. probe block 32, online_movable 32
2. probe block 33, probe block 34, ...
	- zone_for_memory() will cause these to start Movable
3. online 33, online 34, ...
	- they're already in Movable, so online_movable is equivalentr

I agree with your general sentiment that this stuff is very 
nonintuitive.

-- 
Reza Arbab

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ