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:   Thu, 12 Aug 2021 23:31:53 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@suse.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86/mm: Provide helpers for unaccepted memory
Message-ID: <20210812203153.uoa7nx7w5zdsmzck@box.shutemov.name>
References: <20210810062626.1012-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20210810062626.1012-5-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <67ce254c-aacc-43b6-d8d5-168ef9200f9e@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <67ce254c-aacc-43b6-d8d5-168ef9200f9e@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 11:16:26AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 8/9/21 11:26 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > +void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
> > +{
> > +	if (!boot_params.unaccepted_memory)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	spin_lock(&unaccepted_memory_lock);
> > +	__accept_memory(start, end);
> > +	spin_unlock(&unaccepted_memory_lock);
> > +}
> 
> Isn't this taken in the:
> 
> 	del_page_from_free_list()->
> 	clear_page_offline()->
> 	accept_memory()
> 
> call path?
> 
> That's underneath:
> 
> 	spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
> 
> Which means that accept_memory() can happen from interrupt context.  Is
> it always covered by another spin_lock_irqsave() which means that it can
> use a plain spin_lock()?

I didn't give it enough thought yet, but we always run under zone lock
which has to use spin_lock_irqsave() if it called from interrupt context.

Having said that I think it is good idea to move clear_page_offline() out
zone lock. It should help with allocation latency. Not sure how messy it
gets. Merging/splitting path looks complex and I'm not an expert in the
page allocator.

> If so, it would be nice to call out that logic.  It *looks* like a
> spinlock that we would want to be spin_lock_irqsave().

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov