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:   Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:42:42 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     Chris Goldsworthy <quic_cgoldswo@quicinc.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] arm64: mm: update max_pfn after memory hotplug
Message-ID: <20210929104241.GA21395@willie-the-truck>
References: <cover.1632437225.git.quic_cgoldswo@quicinc.com>
 <595d09279824faf1f54961cef52b745609b05d97.1632437225.git.quic_cgoldswo@quicinc.com>
 <20210929101028.GB21057@willie-the-truck>
 <13f56b37-afc7-bf6f-d544-8d6433588bf9@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <13f56b37-afc7-bf6f-d544-8d6433588bf9@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:29:32PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 29.09.21 12:10, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 03:54:48PM -0700, Chris Goldsworthy wrote:
> > > From: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@quicinc.com>
> > > 
> > > After new memory blocks have been hotplugged, max_pfn and max_low_pfn
> > > needs updating to reflect on new PFNs being hot added to system.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@quicinc.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Goldsworthy <quic_cgoldswo@quicinc.com>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 5 +++++
> > >   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > index cfd9deb..fd85b51 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > @@ -1499,6 +1499,11 @@ int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
> > >   	if (ret)
> > >   		__remove_pgd_mapping(swapper_pg_dir,
> > >   				     __phys_to_virt(start), size);
> > > +	else {
> > > +		max_pfn = PFN_UP(start + size);
> > > +		max_low_pfn = max_pfn;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > We use 'max_pfn' as part of the argument to set_max_mapnr(). Does that need
> > updating as well?
> > 
> > Do we have sufficient locking to ensure nobody is looking at max_pfn or
> > max_low_pfn while we update them?
> 
> Only the write side is protected by memory hotplug locking. The read side is
> lockless -- just like all of the other pfn_to_online_page() machinery.

Hmm. So the readers can see one of the variables updated but the other one
stale?

Will