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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/8] mm,memory_hotplug: Factor out adjusting present
 pages into adjust_present_page_count()
To:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210416112411.9826-1-osalvador@suse.de>
 <20210416112411.9826-4-osalvador@suse.de> <YH6i09ieDte+xog8@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20210421080036.GC22456@linux>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Message-ID: <c352a62a-3369-01a9-10b0-c76f5c2dc038@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:06:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210421080036.GC22456@linux>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 21.04.21 10:00, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:45:55AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Fri 16-04-21 13:24:06, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>>> From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Let's have a single place (inspired by adjust_managed_page_count()) where
>>> we adjust present pages.
>>> In contrast to adjust_managed_page_count(), only memory onlining/offlining
>>> is allowed to modify the number of present pages.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
>>> Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
>>
>> Not sure self review counts ;)
> 
> Uhm, the original author is David, I just added my signed-off-by as a deliverer.
> I thought that in that case was ok to stick my Reviewed-by.
> Or maybe my signed-off-by carries that implicitly.
> 
>> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>>
>> Btw. I strongly suspect the resize lock is quite pointless here.
>> Something for a follow up patch.
> 
> What makes you think that?
> I have been thinking about this, let us ignore this patch for a moment.
> 
> If I poked the code correctly, node_size_lock is taken in:
> 
> remove_pfn_range_from_zone()
> move_pfn_range_to_zone()
> 
> both of them handling {zone,node}->spanned_pages
> 
> Then we take it in {offline,online}_pages() for {zone,node}->present_pages.
> 
> The other places where we take it are __init functions, so not of interest.
> 
> Given that {offline,online}_pages() is serialized by the memory_hotplug lock,
> I would say that {node,zone}->{spanned,present}_pages is, at any time, stable?
> So, no need for the lock even without considering this patch?
> 
> Now, getting back to this patch.
> adjust_present_page_count() will be called from memory_block_online(), which
> is not holding the memory_hotplug lock yet.
> But, we only fiddle with present pages out of {online,offline}_pages() if
> we have vmemmap pages, and since that operates on the same memory block,
> its lock should serialize that.
> 
> I think I went down a rabbit hole, I am slightly confused now.

We always hold the device hotplug lock when onlining/offlining memory.

I agree that the lock might be unnecessary (had the same thoughts a 
while ago), we can look into that in the future.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb