[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <C6941572-4380-4E07-A622-1BB63AE30622@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 21:35:35 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
osalvador@...e.de, richard.weiyang@...il.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/memory_hotplug: drain per-cpu pages again during memory offline
> Am 03.09.2020 um 21:31 schrieb Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>:
>
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 19:36:26 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> (still on vacation, back next week on Tuesday)
>>
>> I didn't look into discussions in v1, but to me this looks like we are
>> trying to hide an actual bug by implementing hacks in the caller
>> (repeated calls to drain_all_pages()). What about alloc_contig_range()
>> users - you get more allocation errors just because PCP code doesn't
>> play along.
>>
>> There *is* strong synchronization with the page allocator - however,
>> there seems to be one corner case race where we allow to allocate pages
>> from isolated pageblocks.
>>
>> I want that fixed instead if possible, otherwise this is just an ugly
>> hack to make the obvious symptoms (offlining looping forever) disappear.
>>
>> If that is not possible easily, I'd much rather want to see all
>> drain_all_pages() calls being moved to the caller and have the expected
>> behavior documented instead of specifying "there is no strong
>> synchronization with the page allocator" - which is wrong in all but PCP
>> cases (and there only in one possible race?).
>>
>
> It's a two-line hack which fixes a bug in -stable kernels, so I'm
> inclined to proceed with it anyway. We can undo it later on as part of
> a better fix, OK?
Agreed as a stable fix, but I really want to see a proper fix (e.g., disabling PCP while having isolated pageblocks) on top.
>
> Unless you think there's some new misbehaviour which we might see as a
> result of this approach?
>
We basically disable PCP by keeping to flush it. But performance shouldn‘t matter.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists