Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:34:18 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Export generic_online_page()

On 23.09.19 13:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 23-09-19 11:31:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 23.09.19 10:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Fri 20-09-19 10:17:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 09.09.19 13:48, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> Based on linux/next + "[PATCH 0/3] Remove __online_page_set_limits()"
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's replace the __online_page...() functions by generic_online_page().
>>>>> Hyper-V only wants to delay the actual onlining of un-backed pages, so we
>>>>> can simpy re-use the generic function.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only compile-tested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> David Hildenbrand (3):
>>>>>   mm/memory_hotplug: Export generic_online_page()
>>>>>   hv_balloon: Use generic_online_page()
>>>>>   mm/memory_hotplug: Remove __online_page_free() and
>>>>>     __online_page_increment_counters()
>>>>>
>>>>>  drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c        |  3 +--
>>>>>  include/linux/memory_hotplug.h |  4 +---
>>>>>  mm/memory_hotplug.c            | 17 ++---------------
>>>>>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ping, any comments on this one?
>>>
>>> Unification makes a lot of sense to me. You can add
>>> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>>>
>>> I will most likely won't surprise if I asked for more here though ;)
>>
>> I'm not surprised, but definitely not in a negative sense ;) I was
>> asking myself if we could somehow rework this, too.
>>
>>> I have to confess I really detest the whole concept of a hidden callback
>>> with a very weird API. Is this something we can do about? I do realize
>>> that adding a callback would require either cluttering the existing APIs
>>> but maybe we can come up with something more clever. Or maybe existing
>>> external users of online callback can do that as a separate step after
>>> the online is completed - or is this impossible due to locking
>>> guarantees?
>>>
>>
>> The use case of this (somewhat special) callback really is to avoid
>> selected (unbacked in the hypervisor) pages to get put to the buddy just
>> now, but instead to defer that (sometimes, defer till infinity ;) ).
>> Especially, to hinder these pages from getting touched at all. Pages
>> that won't be put to the buddy will usually get PG_offline set (e.g.,
>> Hyper-V and XEN) - the only two users I am aware of.
>>
>> For Hyper-V (and also eventually virtio-mem), it is important to set
>> PG_offline before marking the section to be online (SECTION_IS_ONLINE).
>> Only this way, PG_offline is properly set on all pfn_to_online_page()
>> pages, meaning "don't touch this page" - e.g., used to skip over such
>> pages when suspending or by makedumpfile to skip over such offline pages
>> when creating a memory dump.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I have never really studied what those
> callbacks are doing really.
> 
>> So if we would e.g., try to piggy-back onto the memory_notify()
>> infrastructure, we could
>> 1. Online all pages to the buddy (dropping the callback)
>> 2. E.g., memory_notify(MEM_ONLINE_PAGES, &arg);
>> -> in the notifier, pull pages from the buddy, mark sections online
>> 3. Set all involved sections online (online_mem_sections())
> 
> This doesn't really sound any better. For one pages are immediately
> usable when they hit the buddy allocator so this is racy and thus not
> reliable.
> 
>> However, I am not sure what actually happens after 1. - we are only
>> holding the device hotplug lock and the memory hotplug lock, so the
>> pages can just get allocated. Also, it sounds like more work and code
>> for the same end result (okay, if the rework is really necessary, though).
>>
>> So yeah, while the current callback might not be optimal, I don't see an
>> easy and clean way to rework this. With the change in this series we are
>> at least able to simply defer doing what would have been done without
>> the callback - not perfect but better.
>>
>> Do you have anything in mind that could work out and make this nicer?
> 
> I am wondering why those pages get onlined when they are, in fact,
> supposed to be offline.
> 

It's the current way of emulating sub-memory-block hotplug on top of the
memory bock device API we have. Hyper-V and XEN have been using that for
a long time.

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists