Message-ID: <20170426091906.GB12504@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:19:06 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Reza Arbab <arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Yasuaki Ishimatsu <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
        qiuxishi@...wei.com, Kani Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@....com>,
        slaoub@...il.com, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
        Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: your mail

On Tue 25-04-17 11:50:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:53:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 24-04-17 10:44:43, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:16:16AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Fri 21-04-17 13:38:28, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 09:28:20AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu 20-04-17 10:27:55, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:15:15AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > Which pfn walkers you have in mind?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > For example, kpagecount_read() in fs/proc/page.c. I searched it by
> > > > > > > using pfn_valid().
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yeah, I've checked that one and in fact this is a good example of the
> > > > > > case where you do not really care about holes. It just checks the page
> > > > > > count which is a valid information under any circumstances.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't think so. First, it checks the page *map* count. Is it still valid
> > > > > even if PageReserved() is set?
> > > > 
> > > > I do not know about any user which would manipulate page map count for
> > > > referenced pages. The core MM code doesn't.
> > > 
> > > That's weird that we can get *map* count without PageReserved() check,
> > > but we cannot get zone information.
> > > Zone information is more static information than map count.
> > 
> > As I've already pointed out the rework of the hotplug code is mainly
> > about postponing the zone initialization from the physical hot add to
> > the logical onlining. The zone is really not clear until that moment.
> >  
> > > It should be defined/documented in this time that what information in
> > > the struct page is valid even if PageReserved() is set. And then, we
> > > need to fix all the things based on this design decision.
> > 
> > Where would you suggest documenting this? We do have
> > Documentation/memory-hotplug.txt but it is not really specific about
> > struct page.
> 
> pfn_valid() in include/linux/mmzone.h looks proper place.

diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
index c412e6a3a1e9..443258fcac93 100644
--- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
+++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
@@ -1288,10 +1288,14 @@ unsigned long __init node_memmap_size_bytes(int, unsigned long, unsigned long);
 #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL
 /*
  * pfn_valid() is meant to be able to tell if a given PFN has valid memmap
- * associated with it or not. In FLATMEM, it is expected that holes always
- * have valid memmap as long as there is valid PFNs either side of the hole.
- * In SPARSEMEM, it is assumed that a valid section has a memmap for the
- * entire section.
+ * associated with it or not. This means that a struct page exists for this
+ * pfn. The caller cannot assume the page is fully initialized though.
+ * pfn_to_online_page() should be used to make sure the struct page is fully
+ * initialized.
+ *
+ * In FLATMEM, it is expected that holes always have valid memmap as long as
+ * there is valid PFNs either side of the hole. In SPARSEMEM, it is assumed
+ * that a valid section has a memmap for the entire section.
  *
  * However, an ARM, and maybe other embedded architectures in the future
  * free memmap backing holes to save memory on the assumption the memmap is

> > [...]
> > 
> > > > You are trying to change a semantic of something that has a well defined
> > > > meaning. I disagree that we should change it. It might sound like a
> > > > simpler thing to do because pfn walkers will have to be checked but what
> > > > you are proposing is conflating two different things together.
> > > 
> > > I don't think that *I* try to change the semantic of pfn_valid().
> > > It would be original semantic of pfn_valid().
> > > 
> > > "If pfn_valid() returns true, we can get proper struct page and the
> > > zone information,"
> > 
> > I do not see any guarantee about the zone information anywhere. In fact
> > this is not true with the original implementation as I've tried to
> > explain already. We do have new pages associated with a zone but that
> > association might change during the online phase. So you cannot really
> > rely on that information until the page is online. There is no real
> > change in that regards after my rework.
> 
> I know that what you did doesn't change thing much. What I try to say
> is that previous implementation related to pfn_valid() in hotplug is
> wrong. Please do not assume that hotplug implementation is correct and
> other pfn_valid() users are incorrect. There is no design document so
> I'm not sure which one is correct but assumption that pfn_valid() user
> can access whole the struct page information makes much sense to me.

Not really. E.g. ZONE_DEVICE pages are never online AFAIK. I believe we
still need pfn_valid to work for those pfns. Really, pfn_valid has a
different meaning than you would like it to have. Who knows how many
others like that are lurking there. I feel much more comfortable to go
and hunt already broken code and fix it rathert than break something
unexpectedly.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists