Message-ID: <5677B1B9.2080707@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:00:57 +0800
From: Zhu Guihua <zhugh.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
CC: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
        Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] theoretical race between memory hotplug and pfn iterator
References: <20151221031501.GA32524@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> <5677A378.6010703@cn.fujitsu.com> <20151221071747.GA4396@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
In-Reply-To: <20151221071747.GA4396@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2768
Lines: 72


On 12/21/2015 03:17 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 03:00:08PM +0800, Zhu Guihua wrote:
>> On 12/21/2015 11:15 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>> Hello, memory-hotplug folks.
>>>
>>> I found theoretical problems between memory hotplug and pfn iterator.
>>> For example, pfn iterator works something like below.
>>>
>>> for (pfn = zone_start_pfn; pfn < zone_end_pfn; pfn++) {
>>>          if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
>>>                  continue;
>>>
>>>          page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>>>          /* Do whatever we want */
>>> }
>>>
>>> Sequence of hotplug is something like below.
>>>
>>> 1) add memmap (after then, pfn_valid will return valid)
>>> 2) memmap_init_zone()
>>>
>>> So, if pfn iterator runs between 1) and 2), it could access
>>> uninitialized page information.
>>>
>>> This problem could be solved by re-ordering initialization steps.
>>>
>>> Hot-remove also has a problem. If memory is hot-removed after
>>> pfn_valid() succeed in pfn iterator, access to page would cause NULL
>>> deference because hot-remove frees corresponding memmap. There is no
>>> guard against free in any pfn iterators.
>>>
>>> This problem can be solved by inserting get_online_mems() in all pfn
>>> iterators but this looks error-prone for future usage. Another idea is
>>> that delaying free corresponding memmap until synchronization point such
>>> as system suspend. It will guarantee that there is no running pfn
>>> iterator. Do any have a better idea?
>>>
>>> Btw, I tried to memory-hotremove with QEMU 2.5.5 but it didn't work. I
>>> followed sequences in doc/memory-hotplug. Do you have any comment on this?
>> I tried memory hot remove with qemu 2.5.5 and RHEL 7, it works well.
>> Maybe you can provide more details, such as guest version, err log.
> I'm testing with qemu 2.5.5 and linux-next-20151209 with reverting
> following two patches.
>
> "mm/memblock.c: use memblock_insert_region() for the empty array"
> "mm-memblock-use-memblock_insert_region-for-the-empty-array-checkpatch-fixes"
>
> When I type "device_del dimm1" in qemu monitor, there is no err log in
> kernel and it looks like command has no effect. I inserted log to
> acpi_memory_device_remove() but there is no message, too. Is there
> another way to check that device_del event is actually transmitted to kernel?

You can use udev to monitor memory device remove event. (udevadm monitor)

>
> I launch the qemu with following command.
> ./qemu-system-x86_64-recent -enable-kvm -smp 8 -m 4096,slots=16,maxmem=8G ...
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> .
>


--
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/