linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] mm,memory_hotplug: Allocate memmap from the added memory range

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: <5a755ff6-4085-da64-08d5-49dd232029eb@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 19:08:05 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] mm,memory_hotplug: Allocate memmap from the added
 memory range

On 25.03.21 17:36, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 25-03-21 17:20:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 25.03.21 17:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 25-03-21 16:35:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> So there is indeed a difference. One way around that would be to mark
>>>> vmemmap pages (e.g. PageReserved && magic value stored somewhere in the
>>>> struct page - resembling bootmem vmemmaps) or mark section fully backing
>>>> vmemmaps as online (ugly).
>>>
>>> I am not yet ready to give up on this. Here is a quick stab at the
>>> pfn_to_online_page approach. It is not great but it is not really
>>> terrible either. I think we can do better and skip
>>
>> We both seem to have a different taste, to phrase it in a nice way :) ; but
>> well, you seem to have set your mind (just like I seem to have set mine when
>> trying to find a nice and somewhat-clean way to handle this when discussing
>> it in the past).
> 
> I definitely do not want to fight for a certain solution just for the
> sake of it. I really dislike how the lifetime of the reserved space and
> its accounting are completely detached. But hey, I do understand that
> a worse solution from the design perspective can be better due to
> practical reasons or constrains.
> 
> I haven't seen the hibernation problem before and I do recognize it is
> a nasty one. If all it takes is to make pfn_to_online_page work (and my
> previous attempt is incorrect because it should consult block rather
> than section pfn range) and there are no other downsides then I would
> still prefer to go with my proposal.  If there are still other things to
> plug then, well, practicality is going to win.
> 
> So before I give up on the "proper" design card, are there more
> subtleties to watch for? You have certainly given this much more thought
> than I have.
> 

"Just one more thing" :)

With the pfn_to_online_page() change, I think what remains is


1. The contiguous zone thingy, which we discussed is not a deal breaker, 
although sub-optimal and most probably not to be optimized in the future.

2. There corner cases issue with /dev/mem use case with offline memory 
blocks I mentioned. Existing setups (!memmap_on_memory) are not 
affected, so I guess we're fine.

3. valid_zones_show() has to be taught to only look at the !vmemmap 
part, otherwise we'll no longer indicate "movable" after onlining to the 
movable zone. Should be fairly easy.


We'll have pfn_to_online_section() succeed without SECTION_IS_ONLINE. I 
think I/we removed all such code that purely relied on that flag for 
optimizations like

if (!online_section(s))
	continue;


I can give it some more thought, it could fly. At least zone shrinking 
and hibernation should continue working as expected, which is a relief.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb