[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] migration/mm: Add WARN_ON to try_offline_node

On 10/02/2018 11:04 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 02-10-18 10:14:49, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>> On 10/02/2018 09:59 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 02-10-18 09:51:40, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> When the device-tree affinity attributes have changed for memory,
>>>> the 'nid' affinity calculated points to a different node for the
>>>> memory block than the one used to install it, previously on the
>>>> source system. The newly calculated 'nid' affinity may not yet
>>>> be initialized on the target system. The current memory tracking
>>>> mechanisms do not record the node to which a memory block was
>>>> associated when it was added. Nathan is looking at adding this
>>>> feature to the new implementation of LMBs, but it is not there
>>>> yet, and won't be present in earlier kernels without backporting a
>>>> significant number of changes.
>>> Then the patch you have proposed here just papers over a real issue, no?
>>> IIUC then you simply do not remove the memory if you lose the race.
>> The problem occurs when removing memory after an affinity change
>> references a node that was previously unreferenced. Other code
>> in 'kernel/mm/memory_hotplug.c' deals with initializing an empty
>> node when adding memory to a system. The 'removing memory' case is
>> specific to systems that perform LPM and allow device-tree changes.
>> The powerpc kernel does not have the option of accepting some PRRN
>> requests and accepting others. It must perform them all.
> I am sorry, but you are still too cryptic for me. Either there is a
> correctness issue and the the patch doesn't really fix anything or the
> final race doesn't make any difference and then the ppc code should be
> explicit about that. Checking the node inside the hotplug core code just
> looks as a wrong layer to mitigate an arch specific problem. I am not
> saying the patch is a no-go but if anything we want a big fat comment
> explaining how this is possible because right now it just points to an
> incorrect API usage.
> That being said, this sounds pretty much ppc specific problem and I
> would _prefer_ it to be handled there (along with a big fat comment of
> course).

Let me try again. Regardless of the path to which we get to this condition,
we currently crash the kernel. This patch changes that to a WARN_ON notice
and continues executing the kernel without shutting down the system. I saw
the problem during powerpc testing, because that is the focus of my work.
There are other paths to this function besides powerpc. I feel that the
kernel should keep running instead of halting.


Michael W. Bringmann
Linux Technology Center
IBM Corporation
Tie-Line 363-5196
External: (512) 286-5196
Cell: (512) 466-0650

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-02 20:14    [W:0.045 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site