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  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 10:08:41 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...hadventures.net>
Cc:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mhocko@...e.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, yasu.isimatu@...il.com,
        logang@...tatee.com, dave.jiang@...el.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Create __shrink_pages and move
 it to offline_pages

On 08.08.2018 09:56, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> 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"..
> 
> Thanks
> 

Then it is maybe time to cleary distinguish both types of memory, as
they are fundamentally different when it comes to online/offline behavior.

Ordinary ram:
 add_memory ...
 online_pages ...
 offline_pages
 remove_memory

Device memory
 add_device_memory ...
 remove_device_memory

So adding/removing from the zone and stuff can be handled there.

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists