Messages in this thread | | | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [5/8] Fix logic error in 64bit memory hotadd | Date | Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:05:04 +0100 |
| |
On Monday 11 February 2008 13:46:25 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > > > The memory hotadd code assumes that the pud always exists already, but > > that might be not true. Allocate it if it isn't there. > > ok, this seems an like an ancient memory-hotplug bug.
Yes.
> Does anyone even > use memory hotplug currently?
I don't know.
> Did you find this bug via review, or did > it trigger in practice?
Review.
> > Also, your fix, while it solves a real bug we want to fix, is not quite > right for upstream integration yet. I can see 3 immediate problems with > it: > > > + if (!pud_present(*pud)) { > > + pud = (pud_t *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC); > > the GFP_ATOMIC here can fail.
The memory hotplug code already uses GFP_ATOMIC elsewhere (spp_getpage)
> The proper solution is to instead extend init_memory_mapping() with a > gfp_t parameter and pass in GFP_ATOMIC from the early init code (where > we must not schedule and where GFP_ATOMIC will succeed anyway), but do a > GFP_KERNEL from arch_add_memory().
The existing code already does GFP_ATOMIC. I admit I haven't double checked why it does that (didn't read the complete path) but I assume it takes a spin lock somewhere.
If there is no lock doing a general clean up of all of them would probably make sense. But it would be orthogonal to my patch and I don't think it's needed to fix this concrete bug.
The gfp argument is not needed though because this case can be already distingushed by checking after_bootmem.
> The proper solution is to extend init_memory_mapping() with a return > value, and to check in the caller. arch_add_memory() obviously does not > want to panic(), it wants to return -ENOMEM to mm/memory_hotplug.c.
The existing code already panics elsewhere (spp_getpage); i just copied that.
So in summary the panic&GFP_ATOMIC use are not good (I agree), but it's not worse than what was in there before.
-Andi
| |