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  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:   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 09:56:14 +0200
From:   Oscar Salvador <>
To:     David Hildenbrand <>
Cc:     Jerome Glisse <>,,,,,,,,, Oscar Salvador <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Create __shrink_pages and
 move it to offline_pages

On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 09:45:37AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 08.08.2018 09:38, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 06:13:45PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >>> And since we know for sure that memhotplug-code cannot call it with ZONE_DEVICE,
> >>> I think this can be done easily.
> >>
> >> This might change down road but for now this is correct. They are
> >> talks to enumerate device memory through standard platform mechanisms
> >> and thus the kernel might see new types of resources down the road and
> >> maybe we will want to hotplug them directly from regular hotplug path
> >> as ZONE_DEVICE (lot of hypothetical at this point ;)).
> > 
> > Well, I think that if that happens this whole thing will become
> > much easier, since we will not have several paths for doing the same thing.
> > 
> > Another thing that I realized is that while we want to move all operation-pages
> > from remove_memory() path to offline_pages(), this can get tricky.
> > 
> > Unless I am missing something, the devices from HMM and devm are not being registered
> > against "memory_subsys" struct, and so, they never get to call memory_subsys_offline()
> > and so offline_pages().
> > 
> > Which means that we would have to call __remove_zone() from those paths.
> > But this alone will not work.
> I mean, they move it to the zone ("replacing online/offlining code"), so
> they should take of removing it again.

Yeah, I guess so.

I mean, of course we can make this work by placing __remove_zone in devm_memremap_pages_release
and hmm_devmem_release functions and make sure to call offline_mem_sections first.
But sounds a bit "hacky"..

Oscar Salvador

Powered by blists - more mailing lists