linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] mm/memory_hotplug: Create memory block devices after arch_add

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]

Message-ID: <85a81b34-4f8d-9649-939a-f722528e37ee@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 May 2019 14:50:11 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "mike.travis@....com" <mike.travis@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Banman <andrew.banman@....com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Arun KS <arunks@...eaurora.org>,
        Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] mm/memory_hotplug: Create memory block devices
 after arch_add_memory()

On 09.05.19 14:43, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 08:38:00PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Only memory to be added to the buddy and to be onlined/offlined by
>> user space using memory block devices needs (and should have!) memory
>> block devices.
>>
>> Factor out creation of memory block devices Create all devices after
>> arch_add_memory() succeeded. We can later drop the want_memblock parameter,
>> because it is now effectively stale.
>>
>> Only after memory block devices have been added, memory can be onlined
>> by user space. This implies, that memory is not visible to user space at
>> all before arch_add_memory() succeeded.
>>
>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>> Cc: "mike.travis@....com" <mike.travis@....com>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Andrew Banman <andrew.banman@....com>
>> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>> Cc: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
>> Cc: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
>> Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
>> Cc: Arun KS <arunks@...eaurora.org>
>> Cc: Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/base/memory.c  | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>> include/linux/memory.h |  2 +-
>> mm/memory_hotplug.c    | 15 ++++-----
>> 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
>> index 6e0cb4fda179..862c202a18ca 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
>> @@ -701,44 +701,62 @@ static int add_memory_block(int base_section_nr)
>> 	return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static void unregister_memory(struct memory_block *memory)
>> +{
>> +	BUG_ON(memory->dev.bus != &memory_subsys);
>> +
>> +	/* drop the ref. we got via find_memory_block() */
>> +	put_device(&memory->dev);
>> +	device_unregister(&memory->dev);
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> - * need an interface for the VM to add new memory regions,
>> - * but without onlining it.
>> + * Create memory block devices for the given memory area. Start and size
>> + * have to be aligned to memory block granularity. Memory block devices
>> + * will be initialized as offline.
>>  */
>> -int hotplug_memory_register(int nid, struct mem_section *section)
>> +int hotplug_memory_register(unsigned long start, unsigned long size)
>> {
>> -	int ret = 0;
>> +	unsigned long block_nr_pages = memory_block_size_bytes() >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> +	unsigned long start_pfn = PFN_DOWN(start);
>> +	unsigned long end_pfn = start_pfn + (size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>> +	unsigned long pfn;
>> 	struct memory_block *mem;
>> +	int ret = 0;
>>
>> -	mutex_lock(&mem_sysfs_mutex);
>> +	BUG_ON(!IS_ALIGNED(start, memory_block_size_bytes()));
>> +	BUG_ON(!IS_ALIGNED(size, memory_block_size_bytes()));
> 
> After this change, the call flow looks like this:
> 
> add_memory_resource
>     check_hotplug_memory_range
>     hotplug_memory_register
> 
> Since in check_hotplug_memory_range() has checked the boundary, do we need to
> check here again?
> 

I prefer to check for such requirements explicitly in applicable places,
especially if they are placed in different files. Makes code easier to
get. WARN_ON_ONCE will indicate that this has to be assured by the caller.

Thanks!

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb