linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Create __shrink_pages and move it to offline

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:   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:27:09 -0400
From:   Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     osalvador@...hadventures.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, pasha.tatashin@...cle.com,
        david@...hat.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 Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 10:24:15AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 08-08-18 12:58:15, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 08:47:58AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 07-08-18 11:18:10, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 04:59:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue 07-08-18 09:52:21, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 03:37:56PM +0200, osalvador@...hadventures.net wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > > > > > > index 9bd629944c91..e33555651e46 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  /**
> > > > > > >   * __remove_pages() - remove sections of pages from a zone
> > > > > > > - * @zone: zone from which pages need to be removed
> > > > > > > + * @nid: node which pages belong to
> > > > > > >   * @phys_start_pfn: starting pageframe (must be aligned to start of a section)
> > > > > > >   * @nr_pages: number of pages to remove (must be multiple of section size)
> > > > > > >   * @altmap: alternative device page map or %NULL if default memmap is used
> > > > > > > @@ -548,7 +557,7 @@ static int __remove_section(struct zone *zone, struct mem_section *ms,
> > > > > > >   * sure that pages are marked reserved and zones are adjust properly by
> > > > > > >   * calling offline_pages().
> > > > > > >   */
> > > > > > > -int __remove_pages(struct zone *zone, unsigned long phys_start_pfn,
> > > > > > > +int __remove_pages(int nid, unsigned long phys_start_pfn,
> > > > > > >  		 unsigned long nr_pages, struct vmem_altmap *altmap)
> > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > >  	unsigned long i;
> > > > > > > @@ -556,10 +565,9 @@ int __remove_pages(struct zone *zone, unsigned long phys_start_pfn,
> > > > > > >  	int sections_to_remove, ret = 0;
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  	/* In the ZONE_DEVICE case device driver owns the memory region */
> > > > > > > -	if (is_dev_zone(zone)) {
> > > > > > > -		if (altmap)
> > > > > > > -			map_offset = vmem_altmap_offset(altmap);
> > > > > > > -	} else {
> > > > > > > +	if (altmap)
> > > > > > > +		map_offset = vmem_altmap_offset(altmap);
> > > > > > > +	else {
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This will break ZONE_DEVICE at least for HMM. While i think that
> > > > > > altmap -> ZONE_DEVICE (ie altmap imply ZONE_DEVICE) the reverse
> > > > > > is not true ie ZONE_DEVICE does not necessarily imply altmap. So
> > > > > > with the above changes you change the expected behavior.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Could you be more specific what is the expected behavior here?
> > > > > Is this about calling release_mem_region_adjustable? Why does is it not
> > > > > suitable for zone device ranges?
> > > > 
> > > > Correct, you should not call release_mem_region_adjustable() the device
> > > > region is not part of regular iomem resource as it might not necessarily
> > > > be enumerated through known ways to the kernel (ie only the device driver
> > > > can discover the region and core kernel do not know about it).
> > > 
> > > If there is no region registered with the range then the call should be
> > > mere nop, no? So why do we have to special case?
> > 
> > IIRC this is because you can not release the resource ie the resource
> > is still own by the device driver even if you hotremove the memory.
> > The device driver might still be using the resource without struct page.
> 
> But then it seems to be a property of a device rather than zone_device,
> no? If there are devices which want to preserve the resource then they
> should tell that. Doing that unconditionally for all zone_device users
> seems just wrong.

I am fine with changing that, i did not do that and at the time i did
not have any feeling on that matter.

Cheers,
Jérôme