On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:15:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 12:57:29 AM joeyli wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 06:20:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 30-03-17 10:47:52, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > we have been chasing the following BUG() triggering during the memory
> > > > > > > > hotremove (remove_memory):
> > > > > > > > ret = walk_memory_range(PFN_DOWN(start), PFN_UP(start + size - 1), NULL,
> > > > > > > > check_memblock_offlined_cb);
> > > > > > > > if (ret)
> > > > > > > > BUG();
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and it took a while to learn that the issue is caused by
> > > > > > > > /sys/firmware/acpi/hotplug/force_remove being enabled. I was really
> > > > > > > > surprised to see such an option because at least for the memory hotplug
> > > > > > > > it cannot work at all. Memory hotplug fails when the memory is still
> > > > > > > > in use. Even if we do not BUG() here enforcing the hotplug operation
> > > > > > > > will lead to problematic behavior later like crash or a silent memory
> > > > > > > > corruption if the memory gets onlined back and reused by somebody else.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am wondering what was the motivation for introducing this behavior and
> > > > > > > > whether there is a way to disallow it for memory hotplug. Or maybe drop
> > > > > > > > it completely. What would break in such a case?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Honestly, I don't remember from the top of my head and I haven't looked at
> > > > > > > that code for several months.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I need some time to recall that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did you have any chance to look into this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like that was added for some people who depended on the old behavior
> > > > > at that time.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess we can try to drop it and see what happpens. :-)
> > > >
> > > > I'd agree with that; at the same time, udev rule should be submitted to
> > > > systemd folks though. I don't think there is anything existing in this
> > > > area yet (neither do distros ship their own udev rules for this AFAIK).
> > >
> > > Another option would keepint the force_remove knob but make the code be
> > > error handling aware. In other words rather than ignoring offline error
> > > simply propagate it up the chain and do not consider the offline. Would
> > > that be acceptable?
> >
> > Then the only difference between normal mode is that the force_remove mode
> > doesn't send out uevent for not-offline-yet container.
>
> Which would be rather confusing.
>
> The whole point of the thing was the "remove no matter what" behavior and
> there's not much point in keeping it around without that.
>
OK~ Understood.
Then back the "remove no matter waht" behavior, the point is
force_remove knob causes that acpi_scan_try_to_offline() ignored
the offline error of parent/children devices in the second pass:
drivers/acpi/scan.c
static int acpi_scan_try_to_offline(struct acpi_device *device)
{
...
/* first pass to call bus offline for parent */
acpi_bus_offline(handle, 0, (void *)false, (void **)&errdev);
/* if failed, then second pass */
if (errdev) {
errdev = NULL;
/* children devices, second pass */
acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_ANY, handle, ACPI_UINT32_MAX,
NULL, acpi_bus_offline, (void *)true,
(void **)&errdev);
/* ignored children's offline error here */
if (!errdev || acpi_force_hot_remove)
/* ignored parent's offline error */
acpi_bus_offline(handle, 0, (void *)true,
(void **)&errdev);
/* will not set devices back to online */
if (errdev && !acpi_force_hot_remove) {
...
}
return 0;
}
Then acpi_scan_try_to_offline() returns 0 and go to _remove_ stage, then
memory subsystem raises BUG() because the device offline state doesn't sync
with memory block state.
Thanks a lot!
Joey Lee
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
