Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:30:43 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        David Hildenbrand <dhildenb@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        cai@....pw, logang@...tatee.com, cpandya@...eaurora.org,
        arunks@...eaurora.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, osalvador@...e.de,
        ard.biesheuvel@....com, steve.capper@....com, broonie@...nel.org,
        valentin.schneider@....com, robin.murphy@....com,
        steven.price@....com, suzuki.poulose@....com, ira.weiny@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 1/5] mm/hotplug: Introduce arch callback validating
 the hot remove range

On 14.01.20 12:09, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/14/2020 07:43 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/13/2020 04:07 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 13.01.20 10:50, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/13/2020 02:44 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 13.01.2020 um 10:10 schrieb Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/10/2020 02:12 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10.01.20 04:09, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>>>>> Currently there are two interfaces to initiate memory range hot removal i.e
>>>>>>>> remove_memory() and __remove_memory() which then calls try_remove_memory().
>>>>>>>> Platform gets called with arch_remove_memory() to tear down required kernel
>>>>>>>> page tables and other arch specific procedures. But there are platforms
>>>>>>>> like arm64 which might want to prevent removal of certain specific memory
>>>>>>>> ranges irrespective of their present usage or movability properties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? Is this only relevant for boot memory? I hope so, otherwise the
>>>>>>> arch code needs fixing IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, it is relevant only for the boot memory on arm64 platform. But this
>>>>>> new arch callback makes it flexible to reject any given memory range.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's only boot memory, we should disallow offlining instead via a
>>>>>>> memory notifier - much cleaner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dont have much detail understanding of MMU notifier mechanism but from some
>>>>>> initial reading, it seems like we need to have a mm_struct for a notifier
>>>>>> to monitor various events on the page table. Just wondering how a physical
>>>>>> memory range like boot memory can be monitored because it can be used both
>>>>>> for for kernel (init_mm) or user space process at same time. Is there some
>>>>>> mechanism we could do this ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Current arch call back arch_remove_memory() is too late in the process to
>>>>>>>> abort memory hot removal as memory block devices and firmware memory map
>>>>>>>> entries would have already been removed. Platforms should be able to abort
>>>>>>>> the process before taking the mem_hotplug_lock with mem_hotplug_begin().
>>>>>>>> This essentially requires a new arch callback for memory range validation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I somewhat dislike this very much. Memory removal should never fail if
>>>>>>> used sanely. See e.g., __remove_memory(), it will BUG() whenever
>>>>>>> something like that would strike.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This differentiates memory range validation between memory hot add and hot
>>>>>>>> remove paths before carving out a new helper check_hotremove_memory_range()
>>>>>>>> which incorporates a new arch callback. This call back provides platforms
>>>>>>>> an opportunity to refuse memory removal at the very onset. In future the
>>>>>>>> same principle can be extended for memory hot add path if required.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Platforms can choose to override this callback in order to reject specific
>>>>>>>> memory ranges from removal or can just fallback to a default implementation
>>>>>>>> which allows removal of all memory ranges.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect we want really want to disallow offlining instead. E.g., I
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If boot memory pages can be prevented from being offlined for sure, then it
>>>>>> would indirectly definitely prevent hot remove process as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> remember s390x does that with certain areas needed for dumping/kexec.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could not find any references to mmu_notifier in arch/s390 or any other arch
>>>>>> for that matter apart from KVM (which has an user space component), could you
>>>>>> please give some pointers ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Memory (hotplug) notifier, not MMU notifier :)
>>>>
>>>> They are so similarly named :)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not on my notebook right now, grep for MEM_GOING_OFFLINE, that should be it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Got it, thanks ! But we will still need boot memory enumeration via MEMBLOCK_BOOT
>>>> to reject affected offline requests in the callback.
>>>
>>> Do you really need that?
>>>
>>> We have SECTION_IS_EARLY. You could iterate all involved sections (for
>>> which you are getting notified) and check if any one of these is marked
>>> SECTION_IS_EARLY. then, it was added during boot and not via add_memory().
>>
>> Seems to be a better approach than adding a new memblock flag.
> 
> These additional changes do the trick and prevent boot memory removal.
> Hope this is in line with your earlier suggestion.
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> index 00f3e1836558..3b59e6a29dea 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>  #include <linux/mman.h>
>  #include <linux/nodemask.h>
>  #include <linux/memblock.h>
> +#include <linux/memory.h>
>  #include <linux/fs.h>
>  #include <linux/io.h>
>  #include <linux/mm.h>
> @@ -1365,4 +1366,37 @@ void arch_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
>         __remove_pages(start_pfn, nr_pages, altmap);
>         __remove_pgd_mapping(swapper_pg_dir, __phys_to_virt(start), size);
>  }
> +
> +static int boot_mem_remove_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> +                                   unsigned long action, void *data)
> +{
> +       unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn, pfn, section_nr;
> +       struct mem_section *ms;
> +       struct memory_notify *arg = data;
> +
> +       start_pfn = 
> +       end_pfn = start_pfn + arg->nr_pages;

You can initialize some of these directly

struct memory_notify *arg = data;
const unsigned long end_pfn = arg->start_pfn; + arg->nr_pages;
unsigned long pfn = arg->start_pfn;

and avoid start_pfn.

> +
> +       if (action != MEM_GOING_OFFLINE)
> +               return NOTIFY_OK;
> +
> +       for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
> +               section_nr = ;
> +               ms = __nr_to_section(section_nr);

Also, I think you can avoid section_nr.

		ms = __nr_to_section(pfn_to_section_nr(pfn));

> +
> +               if (early_section(ms))
> +                       return NOTIFY_BAD;
> +       }
> +       return NOTIFY_OK;
> +}
> +
> +static struct notifier_block boot_mem_remove_nb = {
> +       .notifier_call = boot_mem_remove_notifier,
> +};
> +
> +static int __init boot_mem_remove_init(void)
> +{
> +       return register_memory_notifier(&boot_mem_remove_nb);
> +}
> +device_initcall(boot_mem_remove_init);
>  #endif

Exactly what I was suggesting :)

If we ever need to offline+re-online boot memory (e.g., to a different
zone), we can think of something else.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists