lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm/hotplug: Only respect mem= parameter during boot stage
From
Date
On 09.12.19 12:08, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 09.12.19 12:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 09.12.19 11:24, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>> On 09.12.19 11:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Fri 06-12-19 23:05:24, Baoquan He wrote:
>>>>> In commit 357b4da50a62 ("x86: respect memory size limiting via mem=
>>>>> parameter") a global varialbe global max_mem_size is added to store
>>>>> the value which is parsed from 'mem= '. This truly stops those
>>>>> DIMM from being added into system memory during boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it also limits the later memory hotplug functionality. Any
>>>>> memory board can't be hot added any more if its region is beyond the
>>>>> max_mem_size. System will print error like below:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 216.387164] acpi PNP0C80:02: add_memory failed
>>>>> [ 216.389301] acpi PNP0C80:02: acpi_memory_enable_device() error
>>>>> [ 216.392187] acpi PNP0C80:02: Enumeration failure
>>>>>
>>>>> >From document of 'mem =' parameter, it should be a restriction during
>>>>> boot, but not impact the system memory adding/removing after booting.
>>>>>
>>>>> mem=nn[KMG] [KNL,BOOT] Force usage of a specific amount of memory
>>>>>
>>>>> So fix it by also checking if it's during SYSTEM_BOOTING stage when
>>>>> restrict memory adding. Otherwise, skip the restriction.
>>>>
>>>> Could you be more specific about why the boot vs. later hotplug makes
>>>> any difference? The documentation is explicit about the boot time but
>>>> considering this seems to be like that since ever I strongly suspect
>>>> that this is just an omission.
>>>>
>>>> Btw. how have you tested the situation fixed by 357b4da50a62?
>>>
>>> I guess he hasn't.
>>>
>>> The backtrace of the problem at that time was:
>>>
>>> [ 8321.876844] [<ffffffff81019ab9>] dump_trace+0x59/0x340
>>> [ 8321.882683] [<ffffffff81019e8a>] show_stack_log_lvl+0xea/0x170
>>> [ 8321.889298] [<ffffffff8101ac31>] show_stack+0x21/0x40
>>> [ 8321.895043] [<ffffffff81319530>] dump_stack+0x5c/0x7c
>>> [ 8321.900779] [<ffffffff8107fbf1>] warn_slowpath_common+0x81/0xb0
>>> [ 8321.907482] [<ffffffff81009f54>] xen_alloc_pte+0x1d4/0x390
>>> [ 8321.913718] [<ffffffff81064950>]
>>> pmd_populate_kernel.constprop.6+0x40/0x80
>>> [ 8321.921498] [<ffffffff815ef0a8>] phys_pmd_init+0x210/0x255
>>> [ 8321.927724] [<ffffffff815ef2c7>] phys_pud_init+0x1da/0x247
>>> [ 8321.933951] [<ffffffff815efb81>] kernel_physical_mapping_init+0xf5/0x1d4
>>> [ 8321.941533] [<ffffffff815ebc7d>] init_memory_mapping+0x18d/0x380
>>> [ 8321.948341] [<ffffffff810647f9>] arch_add_memory+0x59/0xf0
>>> [ 8321.954570] [<ffffffff815eceed>] add_memory_resource+0x8d/0x160
>>> [ 8321.961283] [<ffffffff815ecff2>] add_memory+0x32/0xf0
>>> [ 8321.967025] [<ffffffff813e1c91>] acpi_memory_device_add+0x131/0x2e0
>>> [ 8321.974128] [<ffffffff8139f752>] acpi_bus_attach+0xe2/0x190
>>> [ 8321.980453] [<ffffffff8139f6ce>] acpi_bus_attach+0x5e/0x190
>>> [ 8321.986778] [<ffffffff8139f6ce>] acpi_bus_attach+0x5e/0x190
>>> [ 8321.993103] [<ffffffff8139f6ce>] acpi_bus_attach+0x5e/0x190
>>> [ 8321.999428] [<ffffffff813a1157>] acpi_bus_scan+0x37/0x70
>>> [ 8322.005461] [<ffffffff81fba955>] acpi_scan_init+0x77/0x1b4
>>> [ 8322.011690] [<ffffffff81fba70c>] acpi_init+0x297/0x2b3
>>> [ 8322.017530] [<ffffffff8100213a>] do_one_initcall+0xca/0x1f0
>>> [ 8322.023855] [<ffffffff81f74266>] kernel_init_freeable+0x194/0x226
>>> [ 8322.030760] [<ffffffff815eb1ba>] kernel_init+0xa/0xe0
>>> [ 8322.036503] [<ffffffff815f7bc5>] ret_from_fork+0x55/0x80
>>>
>>> So this patch would break it again.
>>>
>>> I'd recommend ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 357b4da50a62 ("x86: respect memory size limiting via mem= parameter")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>>> index 55ac23ef11c1..5466a0a00901 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>>> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static struct resource *register_memory_resource(u64 start, u64 size)
>>>>> unsigned long flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
>>>>> char *resource_name = "System RAM";
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (start + size > max_mem_size)
>>>>> + if (start + size > max_mem_size && system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING)
>>>
>>> ... changing this to: ... && system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING
>>
>> I think we usually use system_state < SYSTEM_RUNNING
>>
>
> Works for me as well. :-)
>

As this patch has to be resent, I'd also enjoy a comment explaining why
this special check is in place

/* Make sure memory hotplug works although mem= was specified */

or sth. like that :)

>
> Juergen
>


--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-09 12:12    [W:0.051 / U:13.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site