[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <062bc5d7-a83c-1c1a-7b77-9f043643f4fa@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 15:09:35 +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 15:08, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 25-03-21 13:40:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 25.03.21 13:35, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 25-03-21 12:08:43, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 25.03.21 11:55, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> - When moving the initialization/accounting to hot-add/hot-remove,
>>>>> the section containing the vmemmap pages will remain offline.
>>>>> It might get onlined once the pages get online in online_pages(),
>>>>> or not if vmemmap pages span a whole section.
>>>>> I remember (but maybe David rmemeber better) that that was a problem
>>>>> wrt. pfn_to_online_page() and hybernation/kdump.
>>>>> So, if that is really a problem, we would have to care of ot setting
>>>>> the section to the right state.
>>>>
>>>> Good memory. Indeed, hibernation/kdump won't save the state of the vmemmap,
>>>> because the memory is marked as offline and, thus, logically without any
>>>> valuable content.
>>>
>>> Could you point me to the respective hibernation code please? I always
>>> get lost in that area. Anyway, we do have the same problem even if the
>>> whole accounting is handled during {on,off}lining, no?
>>
>> kernel/power/snapshot.c:saveable_page().
>
> Thanks! So this is as I've suspected. The very same problem is present
> if the memory block is marked offline. So we need a solution here
> anyway. One way to go would be to consider these vmemmap pages always
> online. pfn_to_online_page would have to special case them but we would
> need to identify them first. I used to have PageVmemmap or something
> like that in my early attempt to do this.
>
> That being said this is not an argument for one or the other aproach.
> Both need fixing.
Can you elaborate? What is the issue there? What needs fixing?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists