[Sorry for the late response]
On 8/21/20 11:06 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.08.20 07:03, Dan Williams wrote:
>> @@ -37,109 +45,94 @@ int dev_dax_kmem_probe(struct device *dev)
>> * could be mixed in a node with faster memory, causing
>> * unavoidable performance issues.
>> */
>> - numa_node = dev_dax->target_node;
>> if (numa_node < 0) {
>> dev_warn(dev, "rejecting DAX region with invalid node: %d\n",
>> numa_node);
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> - /* Hotplug starting at the beginning of the next block: */
>> - kmem_start = ALIGN(range->start, memory_block_size_bytes());
>> -
>> - kmem_size = range_len(range);
>> - /* Adjust the size down to compensate for moving up kmem_start: */
>> - kmem_size -= kmem_start - range->start;
>> - /* Align the size down to cover only complete blocks: */
>> - kmem_size &= ~(memory_block_size_bytes() - 1);
>> - kmem_end = kmem_start + kmem_size;
>> -
>> - new_res_name = kstrdup(dev_name(dev), GFP_KERNEL);
>> - if (!new_res_name)
>> + res_name = kstrdup(dev_name(dev), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!res_name)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> - /* Region is permanently reserved if hotremove fails. */
>> - new_res = request_mem_region(kmem_start, kmem_size, new_res_name);
>> - if (!new_res) {
>> - dev_warn(dev, "could not reserve region [%pa-%pa]\n",
>> - &kmem_start, &kmem_end);
>> - kfree(new_res_name);
>> + res = request_mem_region(range.start, range_len(&range), res_name);
>
> I think our range could be empty after aligning. I assume
> request_mem_region() would check that, but maybe we could report a
> better error/warning in that case.
>
dax_kmem_range() already returns a memory-block-aligned @range but
IIUC request_mem_region() isn't checking for that. Having said that
the returned @res wouldn't be different from the passed range.start.
>> /*
>> * Ensure that future kexec'd kernels will not treat this as RAM
>> * automatically.
>> */
>> - rc = add_memory_driver_managed(numa_node, new_res->start,
>> - resource_size(new_res), kmem_name);
>> + rc = add_memory_driver_managed(numa_node, res->start,
>> + resource_size(res), kmem_name);
>> +
>> + res->flags |= IORESOURCE_BUSY;
>
> Hm, I don't think that's correct. Any specific reason why to mark the
> not-added, unaligned parts BUSY? E.g., walk_system_ram_range() could
> suddenly stumble over it - and e.g., similarly kexec code when trying to
> find memory for placing kexec images. I think we should leave this
> !BUSY, just as it is right now.
>
Agreed.
>> if (rc) {
>> - release_resource(new_res);
>> - kfree(new_res);
>> - kfree(new_res_name);
>> + release_mem_region(range.start, range_len(&range));
>> + kfree(res_name);
>> return rc;
>> }
>> - dev_dax->dax_kmem_res = new_res;
>> +
>> + dev_set_drvdata(dev, res_name);
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
>> -static int dev_dax_kmem_remove(struct device *dev)
>> +static void dax_kmem_release(struct dev_dax *dev_dax)
>> {
>> - struct dev_dax *dev_dax = to_dev_dax(dev);
>> - struct resource *res = dev_dax->dax_kmem_res;
>> - resource_size_t kmem_start = res->start;
>> - resource_size_t kmem_size = resource_size(res);
>> - const char *res_name = res->name;
>> int rc;
>> + struct device *dev = &dev_dax->dev;
>> + const char *res_name = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> + struct range range = dax_kmem_range(dev_dax);
>>
>> /*
>> * We have one shot for removing memory, if some memory blocks were not
>> * offline prior to calling this function remove_memory() will fail, and
>> * there is no way to hotremove this memory until reboot because device
>> - * unbind will succeed even if we return failure.
>> + * unbind will proceed regardless of the remove_memory result.
>> */
>> - rc = remove_memory(dev_dax->target_node, kmem_start, kmem_size);
>> - if (rc) {
>> - any_hotremove_failed = true;
>> - dev_err(dev,
>> - "DAX region %pR cannot be hotremoved until the next reboot\n",
>> - res);
>> - return rc;
>> + rc = remove_memory(dev_dax->target_node, range.start, range_len(&range));
>> + if (rc == 0) {
>
> if (!rc) ?
>
Better off would be to keep the old order:
if (rc) {
any_hotremove_failed = true;
dev_err(dev, "%#llx-%#llx cannot be hotremoved until the next reboot\n",
range.start, range.end);
return;
}
release_mem_region(range.start, range_len(&range));
dev_set_drvdata(dev, NULL);
kfree(res_name);
return;
>> + release_mem_region(range.start, range_len(&range));
>
> remove_memory() does a release_mem_region_adjustable(). Don't you
> actually want to release the *unaligned* region you requested?
>
Isn't it what we're doing here?
(The release_mem_region_adjustable() is using the same
dax_kmem-aligned range and there's no split/adjust)
Meaning right now (+ parent marked as !BUSY), and if I am understanding
this correctly:
request_mem_region(range.start, range_len)
__request_region(iomem_res, range.start, range_len) -> alloc @parent
add_memory_driver_managed(parent.start, resource_size(parent))
__request_region(parent.start, resource_size(parent)) -> alloc @child
[...]
remove_memory(range.start, range_len)
request_mem_region_adjustable(range.start, range_len)
__release_region(range.start, range_len) -> remove @child
release_mem_region(range.start, range_len)
__release_region(range.start, range_len) -> doesn't remove @parent because !BUSY?
The add/removal of this relies on !BUSY. But now I am wondering if the parent remaining
unreleased is deliberate even on CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE=y.
Joao
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
