From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@profitbricks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: Add sysfs links from memory device to memblocks
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:23:29 +0200
Message-ID: <3284116.8vZqOg98VZ@vostro.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.9.0-rc6+; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <1364404429.15745.74.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
References: <1361826130-31062-1-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hp.com> <7718937.tEXDldppSg@vostro.rjw.lan> <1364404429.15745.74.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 9495
Lines: 191

Sorry for the delayed response.

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:13:49 AM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 00:39 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 04:59:36 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 23:39 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 09:42:06 AM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 14:04 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, February 25, 2013 02:02:10 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > > > > > In order to eject a memory device object represented as "PNP0C80:%d"
> > > > > > > in sysfs, its associated memblocks (system/memory/memory%d) need to
> > > > > > > be off-lined.  However, there is no user friendly way to correlate
> > > > > > > between a memory device object and its memblocks in sysfs.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This patch creates sysfs links to memblocks under a memory device
> > > > > > > object so that a user can easily checks and manipulates its memblocks
> > > > > > > in sysfs.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > For example, when PNP0C80:05 is associated with memory8 and memory9,
> > > > > > > the following two links are created under PNP0C80:05.  This allows
> > > > > > > a user to access memory8/9 directly from PNP0C80:05.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >   # ll /sys/devices/LNXSYSTM:00/LNXSYBUS:00/PNP0C80:05
> > > > > > >   lrwxrwxrwx. memory8 -> ../../../system/memory/memory8
> > > > > > >   lrwxrwxrwx. memory9 -> ../../../system/memory/memory9
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Here I have some doubts.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This adds a very specific interface for user space that we're going to need to
> > > > > > maintain going forward if the user space starts to use it.  However, it kind of
> > > > > > duplicates the existing "physical_node" interface that we have for "regular"
> > > > > > devices.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So, if possible, I'd like the memory subsystem to utilize the existing
> > > > > > interface instead of creating an entirely new one.  Namely, why don't we create
> > > > > > a struct device-based object for each memory block and associated those new
> > > > > > "devices" with the PNP0C80 ACPI object through the functions in glue.c?
> > > > > > Then, we could add an "offline/online" interface to those "devices" too.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch simply adds symbolic links to system/memory/memoryN, which
> > > > > the memory subsystem already provides for the online/offline interface
> > > > > of memory blocks.  So, it does not introduce a new interface, but guides
> > > > > users (and user tools) to know which memory blocks need to be off-lined
> > > > > in order to hot-delete any particular memory device PNP0C80:X.  A cpu
> > > > > device LNXCPU:X also has a similar symbolic link "sysdev" that links to
> > > > > system/cpu/cpuN.  I could not use the same "sysdev" for PNP0C80:X since
> > > > > it typically associates with multiple memory blocks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I thought about using glue.c to create symbolic links between memoryN
> > > > > and PNP0C80:X.  However, it has an ordering issue.  During boot-time,
> > > > > memoryN gets created before PNP0C80:X.  But during hot-add, PNP0C80:X
> > > > > gets created before memoryN.
> > > > 
> > > > Quite frankly, this sounds like a bug to me.  Namely, what is memoryN really
> > > > good for without PNP0C80:X?  If it is not good for anything in that case,
> > > > it should never be created befor PNP0C80:X.
> > > 
> > > memoryN works without PNP0C80:X and does not depend on ACPI.  A memoryN
> > > represents a memblk, each of which is merely a 128MB (in case of x86) of
> > > memory chunk sliced from the entire memory ranges.
> > 
> > Ah.  Why is it exported this way?
> 
> This is because a memblk is the unit of the Sparse Memory design, which
> allows discontinuous memory ranges (ex. NUMA) and online/offline
> operations.  So, it makes sense for the memory subsystem to export this
> interface, although I feel that 128MB is rather small these days.
> 
> > > This is why it is
> > > hard to associate between memoryN and PNP0C80:X without these symbolic
> > > links (otherwise, you will have to calculate from memory address.)
> > 
> > Sure.
> > 
> > > The memory subsystem also obtains the memory ranges from EFI or e820
> > > during boot, and ACPI is not necessary to construct memoryN at boot.
> > > Since EFI / e820 only provides the boot-time configuration, ACPI is used
> > > to update the memory ranges during hot-add/delete.
> > > 
> > > > > This patch calls
> > > > > acpi_setup_mem_blk_links() in a point that solves this ordering issue
> > > > > since this point guarantees that both memoryN and PNP0C80X are created
> > > > > for both boot-time and hot-add.
> > > > 
> > > > I would prefer the ordering of creation to be the same in both cases.
> > > > Otherwise it really looks like we need to work around a problem that we're
> > > > creating for ourselves.
> > > > 
> > > > How exactly are memoryN created during boot?
> > > 
> > > memoryN is created in memory_dev_init().  This is even before
> > > do_initcalls().  I'd also prefer the same ordering, but I felt that
> > > changing this ordering would be rather challenging.
> > > 
> > > do_basic_setup()
> > >   driver_init()
> > >     memory_dev_init()
> > 
> > What about having a "physical memory module" device that will be associated
> > with those memory blocks (and will have links to them from its directory in
> > sysfs) and that will be pointed to by the "physical_node" pointer from
> > under PNP0C80:X?  Then, it may have a driver that will do the online/offline
> > (and export the interface for that to user space through sysfs) and will
> > interact with the ACPI interface provided by PNP0C80:X.
> 
> It sounds interesting idea, but I think it has several issues:
> 
>  - Maintenance: It is not clear to me who owns this physical device.
> From the memory subsystem perspective, a memblk is an object that is
> managed like a device internally.  So, I do not think the memory
> subsystem needs this.

It doesn't, if "offline" is implemented at the memblk level.  Which I'm not
sure is practical, because multiple memblks will be offlined/onlined
simultaneously in all realistic setups.

> If ACPI owns this, it adds complication to us and
> we need to keep up with the memory changes.

Well, "owning" doesn't really apply to any kernel code in any meaningful
way.  I'm familiar with that corporate jargon in which "to own" means
"to be responsible for" roughly, but even that is not applicable to kernel
code, which is not owned by anyone in any form.

The maintenance of kernel code is more like taking care of it and there are
no hard rules about who should or should not be maintaining this or that
piece of it.

I could maintain that driver just fine, so that's not really an issue.

>  - Rollback: As offline/online proceeds on each memblk, the driver has
> to support rollback when one of memblks failed to offline.  This seems
> to against the direction of this approach (no rollback in the kernel).

Depending on what you mean by "rollback".  Technically, if one memblk
fails to offline, there's no need to online the other memblks that have
been offlined already in the same group.  They very well can stay online.

Yes, it would be convenient to online them back to have a well-defined state
after a failing attempt to offline stuff, but that's not a correctness issue.

>  - Ordering issue: Creating symbolic links among 3 types of devices
> (PNP0C80, memblk, new physical device) further complicates the ordering
> issue. 

That's a valid one.  But do we need to link the new device to memblks in
sysfs?

>  - Representation: PNP0C80:X represents the state of an ACPI PNP0C80
> device.  memoryN represents the state of a memblk.  It is not clear what
> this new physical device really represents when there isn't such device
> visible to users.  It may be seen as duplication.

Yes, it may.  That said, I'm not exactly sure why memblks are regarded as
a good way to represent hot-removable memory.  It looks like they are
arbitrary stuff without any relationship to real hardware.  And that's where
the source of the problem is, IMHO.

In any case, ACPI PNP0C80:X should not be regarded as a *device*.  It just
is an interface to a platform mechanism allowing us to do something to a real
device (e.g. eject it), but it is not that device in general.

> Frankly, if we are to provide a good sysfs UI for hot-delete, I'd prefer
> to go with my updated patchset, which keeps user to allow doing "echo 1
> > PNP0C80:X/eject", and all associated memblks will be offlined
> together.

Which isn't correct.  Memory offline shouldn't be associated with an ACPI
device object, because that operation doesn't belong there (eject should
live there, not offline).

> I think the user space approach will require good management
> tools to take care of the UI issue, and the kernel just has to provide
> the necessary info to the user space, which this patch is intended.

No doubt about that, but the question is how to provide that information.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/