linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 27/29] mm/memory_hotplug: extend offline_and_remove_memory() to handle more than one memory block

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: <842683af-0a1e-78ea-5b94-178eaf8f3239@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:59:45 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@...il.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 27/29] mm/memory_hotplug: extend
 offline_and_remove_memory() to handle more than one memory block

On 18.11.20 05:53, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 14:38:13 +0100 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>> virtio-mem soon wants to use offline_and_remove_memory() memory that
>> exceeds a single Linux memory block (memory_block_size_bytes()). Let's
>> remove that restriction.
>>
>> Let's remember the old state and try to restore that if anything goes
>> wrong. While re-onlining can, in general, fail, it's highly unlikely to
>> happen (usually only when a notifier fails to allocate memory, and these
>> are rather rare).
>>
>> This will be used by virtio-mem to offline+remove memory ranges that are
>> bigger than a single memory block - for example, with a device block
>> size of 1 GiB (e.g., gigantic pages in the hypervisor) and a Linux memory
>> block size of 128MB.
>>
>> While we could compress the state into 2 bit, using 8 bit is much
>> easier.
>>
>> This handling is similar, but different to acpi_scan_try_to_offline():
>>
>> a) We don't try to offline twice. I am not sure if this CONFIG_MEMCG
>> optimization is still relevant - it should only apply to ZONE_NORMAL
>> (where we have no guarantees). If relevant, we can always add it.
>>
>> b) acpi_scan_try_to_offline() simply onlines all memory in case
>> something goes wrong. It doesn't restore previous online type. Let's do
>> that, so we won't overwrite what e.g., user space configured.
>>
>> ...
>>
> 
> uint8_t is a bit of a mouthful.  u8 is less typing ;)  Doesn't matter.

In case I have to resend, I'll change it :)

> 
> Acked-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>

Thanks!


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb