lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V3 2/3] arm64/mm/hotplug: Enable MEM_OFFLINE event handling
From
Date
Hi Anshuman,

On 9/21/20 10:05 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This enables MEM_OFFLINE memory event handling. It will help intercept any
> possible error condition such as if boot memory some how still got offlined
> even after an explicit notifier failure, potentially by a future change in
> generic hot plug framework. This would help detect such scenarios and help
> debug further.
>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
> ---

I'm not sure if it makes sense since MEM_OFFLINE won't be triggered
after NOTIFY_BAD is returned from MEM_GOING_OFFLINE. NOTIFY_BAD means
the whole offline process is stopped. It would be guranteed by generic
framework from syntax standpoint.

However, this looks good if MEM_OFFLINE is triggered without calling
into MEM_GOING_OFFLINE previously, but it would be a bug from generic
framework.

> arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> index df3b7415b128..6b171bd88bcf 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> @@ -1482,13 +1482,40 @@ static int prevent_bootmem_remove_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> unsigned long end_pfn = arg->start_pfn + arg->nr_pages;
> unsigned long pfn = arg->start_pfn;
>
> - if (action != MEM_GOING_OFFLINE)
> + if ((action != MEM_GOING_OFFLINE) && (action != MEM_OFFLINE))
> return NOTIFY_OK;
>
> - for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
> - ms = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
> - if (early_section(ms))
> - return NOTIFY_BAD;
> + if (action == MEM_GOING_OFFLINE) {
> + for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
> + ms = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
> + if (early_section(ms)) {
> + pr_warn("Boot memory offlining attempted\n");
> + return NOTIFY_BAD;
> + }
> + }
> + } else if (action == MEM_OFFLINE) {
> + for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
> + ms = __pfn_to_section(pfn);
> + if (early_section(ms)) {
> +
> + /*
> + * This should have never happened. Boot memory
> + * offlining should have been prevented by this
> + * very notifier. Probably some memory removal
> + * procedure might have changed which would then
> + * require further debug.
> + */
> + pr_err("Boot memory offlined\n");
> +
> + /*
> + * Core memory hotplug does not process a return
> + * code from the notifier for MEM_OFFLINE event.
> + * Error condition has been reported. Report as
> + * ignored.
> + */
> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> + }
> + }
> }
> return NOTIFY_OK;
> }
>

It's pretty much irrelevant comment if the patch doesn't make sense:
the logical block for MEM_GOING_OFFLINE would be reused by MEM_OFFLINE
as they looks similar except the return value and error message :)

Cheers,
Gavin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-23 08:32    [W:0.091 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site