[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <306b2bc5-9637-0743-b8bb-7a60aa1ad65d@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 09:31:11 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
mawupeng <mawupeng1@...wei.com>, will@...nel.org
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
sudaraja@...eaurora.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mark.rutland@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: mm: Fix kernel page tables incorrectly deleted
during memory removal
On 7/26/23 13:20, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.07.23 08:20, mawupeng wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2023/7/24 14:11, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 24.07.23 07:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/24/23 06:55, mawupeng wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2023/7/21 18:36, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 07:51:50PM +0800, Wupeng Ma wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Ma Wupeng <mawupeng1@...wei.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> During our test, we found that kernel page table may be unexpectedly
>>>>>>> cleared with rodata off. The root cause is that the kernel page is
>>>>>>> initialized with pud size(1G block mapping) while offline is memory
>>>>>>> block size(MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE 128M), eg, if 2G memory is hot-added,
>>>>>>> when offline a memory block, the call trace is shown below,
>>>
>>> Is someone adding memory in 2 GiB granularity and then removing parts of it in 128 MiB granularity? That would be against what we support using the add_memory() / offline_and_remove_memory() API and that driver should be fixed instead.
>>
>> Yes, this kind of situation.
>>
>> The problem occurs in the following scenarios:
>> 1. use mem=xxG to reserve memory.
>> 2. add_momory to online memory.
>> 3. offline part of the memroy via offline_and_remove_memory.
>>
>> During my research, ACPI memory removal use memory_subsys_offline to offline memory section and
>> this will not delete page table entry which do not trigger this kind of problem.
>>
>> So I understand what you are talking about.
>> 1. 3rd-party driver shouldn't use add_memory/offline_and_remove_memory to online/offline memory.
>> If it have to use, this can be achieved by driver.
>> 2. memory_subsys_offline is perfered to do such thing.
>
> No, my point is that
>
> 1) If you use add_memory() and offline_and_remove_memory() in the *same
> granularity* it has to be working, otherwise it has to be fixed.
>
> 2) If you use add_memory() and offline_and_remove_memory() in different
> granularity (especially, add_memory() in bigger granularity) , then
> change your code to do add_memory() in the same granularity.
>
>
> If you run into 1), then we populated a PUD for boot memory that also covers yet unpopulated physical memory ranges that are later populated by add_memory(). If that's the case, then we can either fix it by
Is that case possible ?
__create_pgd_mapping() is called to create the mapping both in hotplug
and boot memory cases. alloc_init_pud() ensures [1], that both virtual
and physical address ranges are PUD_MASK aligned, before creating a
huge or block page entry.
(addr | next | phys) & ~PUD_MASK) == 0
>
> a) Not doing that. Use PMD tables instead for that piece of memory.
>
> b) Detecting that that PUD still covers memory and refusing to remove
> that PUD.
>
> c) Rejecting to hotadd memory in this situation at that location. We
> have mhp_get_pluggable_range() -> arch_get_mappable_range() to kind-
> of handle something like that.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists