On 03/22/2019 05:32 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 22-03-19 11:49:30, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>> On 03/21/2019 02:06 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 21-03-19 13:38:20, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> Memory hot remove uses get_nid_for_pfn() while tearing down linked sysfs
>>>> entries between memory block and node. It first checks pfn validity with
>>>> pfn_valid_within() before fetching nid. With CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE config
>>>> (arm64 has this enabled) pfn_valid_within() calls pfn_valid().
>>>>
>>>> pfn_valid() is an arch implementation on arm64 (CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID)
>>>> which scans all mapped memblock regions with memblock_is_map_memory(). This
>>>> creates a problem in memory hot remove path which has already removed given
>>>> memory range from memory block with memblock_[remove|free] before arriving
>>>> at unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes().
>>> Could you be more specific on what is the actual problem please? It
>>> would be also helpful to mention when is the memblock[remove|free]
>>> called actually.
>> The problem is in unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes() as it skips calling into both
>> instances of sysfs_remove_link() which removes node-memory block sysfs symlinks.
>> The node enumeration of the memory block still remains in sysfs even if the memory
>> block itself has been removed.
>>
>> This happens because get_nid_for_pfn() returns -1 for a given pfn even if it has
>> a valid associated struct page to fetch the node ID from.
>>
>> On arm64 (with CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE)
>>
>> get_nid_for_pfn() -> pfn_valid_within() -> pfn_valid -> memblock_is_map_memory()
>>
>> At this point memblock for the range has been removed.
>>
>> __remove_memory()
>> memblock_free()
>> memblock_remove() --------> memblock has already been removed
>> arch_remove_memory()
>> __remove_pages()
>> __remove_section()
>> unregister_memory_section()
>> remove_memory_section()
>> unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes()
>>
>> There is a dependency on memblock (after it has been removed) through pfn_valid().
> Can we reorganize or rework the code that the memblock is removed later?
> I guess this is what Oscar was suggesting.
I could get it working with the following re-order of memblock_[free|remove] and
arch_remove_memory(). I did not observe any other adverse side affect because of
this change. Does it look okay ?
--- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
+++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
@@ -1863,11 +1863,11 @@ void __ref __remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
/* remove memmap entry */
firmware_map_remove(start, start + size, "System RAM");
+ arch_remove_memory(nid, start, size, NULL);
+
memblock_free(start, size);
memblock_remove(start, size);
- arch_remove_memory(nid, start, size, NULL);
-
try_offline_node(nid);
mem_hotplug_done();
