Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 17 Oct 2020 06:38:11 +0800
From:   Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 05/29] virtio-mem: generalize check for added memory
Message-ID: <20201016223811.GJ44269@L-31X9LVDL-1304.local>
Reply-To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>
References: <20201012125323.17509-1-david@redhat.com>
 <20201012125323.17509-6-david@redhat.com>
 <20201015082808.GE86495@L-31X9LVDL-1304.local>
 <994394f3-c16d-911c-c9fc-d2280f32e7b1@redhat.com>
 <20201016021651.GI86495@L-31X9LVDL-1304.local>
 <5caec772-295c-436a-2b19-ca261ea1ad0c@redhat.com>
 <20201016100211.GI44269@L-31X9LVDL-1304.local>
 <be3dca3d-f5e1-c2d6-460b-04e666619db8@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <be3dca3d-f5e1-c2d6-460b-04e666619db8@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 12:32:50PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> Ok, I seems to understand the logic now.
>>>>
>>>> But how we prevent ONLINE_PARTIAL memory block get offlined? There are three
>>>> calls in virtio_mem_set_fake_offline(), while all of them adjust page's flag.
>>>> How they hold reference to struct page?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I should have given you the right pointer. (similar to my other
>>> reply)
>>>
>>> We hold a reference either via
>>>
>>> 1. alloc_contig_range()
>> 
>> I am not familiar with this one, need to spend some time to look into.
>
>Each individual page will have a pagecount of 1.
>
>> 
>>> 2. memmap init code, when not calling generic_online_page().
>> 
>> I may miss some code here. Before online pages, memmaps are allocated in
>> section_activate(). They are supposed to be zero-ed. (I don't get the exact
>> code line.) I am not sure when we grab a refcount here.
>
>Best to refer to __init_single_page() -> init_page_count().
>
>Each page that wasn't onlined via generic_online_page() has a refcount
>of 1 and looks like allocated.
>

Thanks, I see the logic.

    online_pages()
        move_pfn_range_to_zone()  --- 1)
	online_pages_range()      --- 2)

At 1), __init_single_page() would set page count to 1. At 2),
generic_online_page() would clear page count, while the call back would not.

Then I am trying to search the place where un-zero page count prevent offline.
scan_movable_pages() would fail, since this is a PageOffline() and has 1 page
count.

So the GUARD we prevent offline partial-onlined pages is

    (PageOffline && page_count)

And your commit aa218795cb5fd583c94f

mm: Allow to offline unmovable PageOffline() pages via MEM_GOING_OFFLINE

is introduced to handle this case.

That's pretty clear now.

>-- 
>Thanks,
>
>David / dhildenb

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me