On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:55:03 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > This is now not called anymore, although the xen/hv variants still do
> > > > > it. The function seems empty these days, maybe remove it as a followup
> > > > > cleanup?
> > > > >
> > > > > > - __online_page_increment_counters(page);
> > > > > > - __online_page_free(page);
> > > > > > + __free_pages_core(page, order);
> > > > > > + totalram_pages += (1UL << order);
> > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
> > > > > > + if (PageHighMem(page))
> > > > > > + totalhigh_pages += (1UL << order);
> > > > > > +#endif
> > > > >
> > > > > __online_page_increment_counters() would have used
> > > > > adjust_managed_page_count() which would do the changes under
> > > > > managed_page_count_lock. Are we safe without the lock? If yes, there
> > > > > should perhaps be a comment explaining why.
> > > >
> > > > Looks unsafe without managed_page_count_lock.
> > >
> > > Why does it matter actually? We cannot online/offline memory in
> > > parallel. This is not the case for the boot where we initialize memory
> > > in parallel on multiple nodes. So this seems to be safe currently unless
> > > I am missing something. A comment explaining that would be helpful
> > > though.
> >
> > Other main callers of adjust_manage_page_count(),
> >
> > static inline void free_reserved_page(struct page *page)
> > {
> > __free_reserved_page(page);
> > adjust_managed_page_count(page, 1);
> > }
> >
> > static inline void mark_page_reserved(struct page *page)
> > {
> > SetPageReserved(page);
> > adjust_managed_page_count(page, -1);
> > }
> >
> > Won't they race with memory hotplug?
> >
> > Few more,
> > ./drivers/xen/balloon.c:519: adjust_managed_page_count(page, -1);
> > ./drivers/virtio/virtio_balloon.c:175: adjust_managed_page_count(page, -1);
> > ./drivers/virtio/virtio_balloon.c:196: adjust_managed_page_count(page, 1);
> > ./mm/hugetlb.c:2158: adjust_managed_page_count(page, 1 <<
> > h->order);
>
> They can, and I have missed those.
So this patch needs more work, yes?
