linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, memory_hotplug: do not fail offlining too early

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]

Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:58:35 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
        Reza Arbab <arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Yasuaki Ishimatsu <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
        qiuxishi@...wei.com, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, memory_hotplug: do not fail offlining too early

On Fri 13-10-17 22:42:46, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> writes:
> > On 10/11/2017 08:51 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Wed 11-10-17 13:37:50, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >>> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:
> >>>> On Tue 10-10-17 23:05:08, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >>>>> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:
> >>>>>> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Memory offlining can fail just too eagerly under a heavy memory pressure.
> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This breaks offline for me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Prior to this commit:
> >>>>>   /sys/devices/system/memory/memory0# time echo 0 > online
> >>>>>   -bash: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
> >
> > Well, that means offline didn't actually work for that block even before
> > this patch, right? Is it even a movable_node block? I guess not?
> 
> Correct. It should fail.
> 
> >>>>> After:
> >>>>>   /sys/devices/system/memory/memory0# time echo 0 > online
> >>>>>   -bash: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
> >>>>>   
> >>>>>   real	2m0.009s
> >>>>>   user	0m0.000s
> >>>>>   sys	1m25.035s
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's no way that block can be removed, it contains the kernel text,
> >>>>> so it should instantly fail - which it used to.
> >
> > Ah, right. So your complain is really about that the failure is not
> > instant anymore for blocks that can't be offlined.
> 
> Yes. Previously it failed instantly, now it doesn't fail, and loops
> infinitely (once the 2 minute limit is removed).

Yeah it failed only because the migration code retried few times and we
bailed out which is wrong as well. I will send two patches as a reply to
this email.

> >> This is really strange! As you write in other email the page is
> >> reserved. That means that some of the earlier checks 
> >> 	if (zone_idx(zone) == ZONE_MOVABLE)
> >> 		return false;
> >> 	mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
> >> 	if (mt == MIGRATE_MOVABLE || is_migrate_cma(mt))
> >
> > The MIGRATE_MOVABLE check is indeed bogus, because that doesn't
> > guarantee there are no unmovable pages in the block (CMA block OTOH
> > should be a guarantee).
> 
> OK I'll try that and get back to you.

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs