Message-ID: <Zp4SbYWA0LgvNvPD@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 11:03:57 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
	John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/17] mm: introduce numa_memblks

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 07:16:47PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:13:41 +0300
> Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@...nel.org>
> > 
> > Move code dealing with numa_memblks from arch/x86 to mm/ and add Kconfig
> > options to let x86 select it in its Kconfig.
> > 
> > This code will be later reused by arch_numa.
> > 
> > No functional changes.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@...nel.org>
> Hi Mike,
> 
> My only real concern in here is there are a few places where
> the lifted code makes changes to memblocks that are x86 only today.
> I need to do some more digging to work out if those are safe
> in all cases.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> 
> > +/**
> > + * numa_cleanup_meminfo - Cleanup a numa_meminfo
> > + * @mi: numa_meminfo to clean up
> > + *
> > + * Sanitize @mi by merging and removing unnecessary memblks.  Also check for
> > + * conflicts and clear unused memblks.
> > + *
> > + * RETURNS:
> > + * 0 on success, -errno on failure.
> > + */
> > +int __init numa_cleanup_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> > +{
> > +	const u64 low = 0;
> 
> Given always zero, why not just use that value inline?

Actually it seems to me that it should be memblock_start_of_DRAM().

The blocks outside system memory are moved to numa_reserved_meminfo, so
AFAIU on arm64/riscv such blocks can be below the RAM.
 
> > +	const u64 high = PFN_PHYS(max_pfn);
> > +	int i, j, k;
> > +
> > +	/* first, trim all entries */
> > +	for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) {
> > +		struct numa_memblk *bi = &mi->blk[i];
> > +
> > +		/* move / save reserved memory ranges */
> > +		if (!memblock_overlaps_region(&memblock.memory,
> > +					bi->start, bi->end - bi->start)) {
> > +			numa_move_tail_memblk(&numa_reserved_meminfo, i--, mi);
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		/* make sure all non-reserved blocks are inside the limits */
> > +		bi->start = max(bi->start, low);
> > +
> > +		/* preserve info for non-RAM areas above 'max_pfn': */
> > +		if (bi->end > high) {
> > +			numa_add_memblk_to(bi->nid, high, bi->end,
> > +					   &numa_reserved_meminfo);
> > +			bi->end = high;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		/* and there's no empty block */
> > +		if (bi->start >= bi->end)
> > +			numa_remove_memblk_from(i--, mi);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* merge neighboring / overlapping entries */
> > +	for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) {
> > +		struct numa_memblk *bi = &mi->blk[i];
> > +
> > +		for (j = i + 1; j < mi->nr_blks; j++) {
> > +			struct numa_memblk *bj = &mi->blk[j];
> > +			u64 start, end;
> > +
> > +			/*
> > +			 * See whether there are overlapping blocks.  Whine
> > +			 * about but allow overlaps of the same nid.  They
> > +			 * will be merged below.
> > +			 */
> > +			if (bi->end > bj->start && bi->start < bj->end) {
> > +				if (bi->nid != bj->nid) {
> > +					pr_err("node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx] overlaps with node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
> > +					       bi->nid, bi->start, bi->end - 1,
> > +					       bj->nid, bj->start, bj->end - 1);
> > +					return -EINVAL;
> > +				}
> > +				pr_warn("Warning: node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx] overlaps with itself [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
> > +					bi->nid, bi->start, bi->end - 1,
> > +					bj->start, bj->end - 1);
> > +			}
> > +
> > +			/*
> > +			 * Join together blocks on the same node, holes
> > +			 * between which don't overlap with memory on other
> > +			 * nodes.
> > +			 */
> > +			if (bi->nid != bj->nid)
> > +				continue;
> > +			start = min(bi->start, bj->start);
> > +			end = max(bi->end, bj->end);
> > +			for (k = 0; k < mi->nr_blks; k++) {
> > +				struct numa_memblk *bk = &mi->blk[k];
> > +
> > +				if (bi->nid == bk->nid)
> > +					continue;
> > +				if (start < bk->end && end > bk->start)
> > +					break;
> > +			}
> > +			if (k < mi->nr_blks)
> > +				continue;
> > +			pr_info("NUMA: Node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx] + [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx] -> [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
> > +			       bi->nid, bi->start, bi->end - 1, bj->start,
> > +			       bj->end - 1, start, end - 1);
> > +			bi->start = start;
> > +			bi->end = end;
> > +			numa_remove_memblk_from(j--, mi);
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* clear unused ones */
> > +	for (i = mi->nr_blks; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mi->blk); i++) {
> > +		mi->blk[i].start = mi->blk[i].end = 0;
> > +		mi->blk[i].nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> > +/*
> > + * Mark all currently memblock-reserved physical memory (which covers the
> > + * kernel's own memory ranges) as hot-unswappable.
> > + */
> > +static void __init numa_clear_kernel_node_hotplug(void)
> 
> This will be a change for non x86 architectures.  'should' be fine
> but I'm not 100% sure.

This function sets nid to memblock.reserved which does not change anything
except the dump in debugfs and then uses the node info in memblock.reserve
to clear MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG from the regions in memblock.memory that contain
the reserved memory because they cannot be hot(un)plugged anyway.
 
> > +{
> > +	nodemask_t reserved_nodemask = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> > +	struct memblock_region *mb_region;
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * We have to do some preprocessing of memblock regions, to
> > +	 * make them suitable for reservation.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * At this time, all memory regions reserved by memblock are
> > +	 * used by the kernel, but those regions are not split up
> > +	 * along node boundaries yet, and don't necessarily have their
> > +	 * node ID set yet either.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * So iterate over all memory known to the x86 architecture,
> 
> Comment needs an update at least given not x86 specific any more.

Sure, will fix.
 
> > +	 * and use those ranges to set the nid in memblock.reserved.
> > +	 * This will split up the memblock regions along node
> > +	 * boundaries and will set the node IDs as well.
> > +	 */
> > +	for (i = 0; i < numa_meminfo.nr_blks; i++) {
> > +		struct numa_memblk *mb = numa_meminfo.blk + i;
> > +		int ret;
> > +
> > +		ret = memblock_set_node(mb->start, mb->end - mb->start,
> > +					&memblock.reserved, mb->nid);
> > +		WARN_ON_ONCE(ret);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Now go over all reserved memblock regions, to construct a
> > +	 * node mask of all kernel reserved memory areas.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * [ Note, when booting with mem=nn[kMG] or in a kdump kernel,
> > +	 *   numa_meminfo might not include all memblock.reserved
> > +	 *   memory ranges, because quirks such as trim_snb_memory()
> > +	 *   reserve specific pages for Sandy Bridge graphics. ]
> > +	 */
> > +	for_each_reserved_mem_region(mb_region) {
> > +		int nid = memblock_get_region_node(mb_region);
> > +
> > +		if (nid != MAX_NUMNODES)
> > +			node_set(nid, reserved_nodemask);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Finally, clear the MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG flag for all memory
> > +	 * belonging to the reserved node mask.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * Note that this will include memory regions that reside
> > +	 * on nodes that contain kernel memory - entire nodes
> > +	 * become hot-unpluggable:
> > +	 */
> > +	for (i = 0; i < numa_meminfo.nr_blks; i++) {
> > +		struct numa_memblk *mb = numa_meminfo.blk + i;
> > +
> > +		if (!node_isset(mb->nid, reserved_nodemask))
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		memblock_clear_hotplug(mb->start, mb->end - mb->start);
> > +	}
> > +}
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists