Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:47:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>,
        joeyli <jlee@suse.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: memory hotplug and force_remove
In-Reply-To: <2203902.lsAnRkUs2Y@aspire.rjw.lan>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1703301046570.31814@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
References: <20170320192938.GA11363@dhcp22.suse.cz> <2735706.OR0SQDpVy6@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170328075808.GB18241@dhcp22.suse.cz> <2203902.lsAnRkUs2Y@aspire.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1739
Lines: 44

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > > > we have been chasing the following BUG() triggering during the memory
> > > > hotremove (remove_memory):
> > > > 	ret = walk_memory_range(PFN_DOWN(start), PFN_UP(start + size - 1), NULL,
> > > > 				check_memblock_offlined_cb);
> > > > 	if (ret)
> > > > 		BUG();
> > > > 
> > > > and it took a while to learn that the issue is caused by
> > > > /sys/firmware/acpi/hotplug/force_remove being enabled. I was really
> > > > surprised to see such an option because at least for the memory hotplug
> > > > it cannot work at all. Memory hotplug fails when the memory is still
> > > > in use. Even if we do not BUG() here enforcing the hotplug operation
> > > > will lead to problematic behavior later like crash or a silent memory
> > > > corruption if the memory gets onlined back and reused by somebody else.
> > > > 
> > > > I am wondering what was the motivation for introducing this behavior and
> > > > whether there is a way to disallow it for memory hotplug. Or maybe drop
> > > > it completely. What would break in such a case?
> > > 
> > > Honestly, I don't remember from the top of my head and I haven't looked at
> > > that code for several months.
> > > 
> > > I need some time to recall that.
> > 
> > Did you have any chance to look into this?
> 
> Well, yes.
> 
> It looks like that was added for some people who depended on the old behavior
> at that time.
> 
> I guess we can try to drop it and see what happpens. :-)

I'd agree with that; at the same time, udev rule should be submitted to 
systemd folks though. I don't think there is anything existing in this 
area yet (neither do distros ship their own udev rules for this AFAIK).

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs