Re: [PATCH v2] x86/vmemmap: Handle unpopulated sub-pmd ranges

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



IMHO, we should rip out that code here and enforce page alignment in
vmemmap_populate()/vmemmap_free().

Am I missing something?

Thanks David for bringing this up, I must say I was not aware that this
topic was ever discussed.

Yeah, last time I raised it was in

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200703013435.GA11340@L-31X9LVDL-1304.local

but I never got to clean it up myself.


Ok, I've been having a look into this.
At first I was concerced because of a pure SPARSEMEM configuration, but I
see that those allocations are done in a very diferent way so it does not
bother us.

So we have the following enforcements during hotplug:

add_memory_resource
  check_hotplug_memory_range : Checks range aligned to memory_block_size_bytes,
                             : which means it must be section-size aligned

populate_section_memmap
  __populate_section_memmap  : Checks range aligned to sub-section size

So, IIRC we have two cases during hotplug:
  1) the ones that want memory blocks
  2) the ones that do not want them (pmem stuff)

For #1, we always enforce section alignment in add_memory_resource, and for
#2 we always make sure the range is at least sub-section aligned.

And the important stuff is that boot memory is no longer to be hot-removed
(boot memory had some strange layout sometimes).

The vmemmap of boot mem sections is always fully populated, even with strange memory layouts (e.g., see comment in pfn_valid()). In addition, we can only offline+remove whole sections, so that should be fine.


So, given the above, I think it should be safe to drop that check in
remote_pte_table.
But do we really need to force page alignment in vmemmap_populate/vmemmap_free?
vmemmap_populate should already receive a page-aligned chunk because
  __populate_section_memmap made sure of that, and vmemmap_free() should be ok
as we already filtered out at hot-adding stage.

Of course, this will hold as long as struct page size of multiple of 8.
Should that change we might get trouble, but I do not think that can ever
happened (tm).

But anyway, I am fine with placing a couple of checks in vmemmap_{populate,free}
just to double check.

What do you think?

I'd just throw in 1 or 2 VM_BUG_ON() to self-document what we expect and that we thought about these conditions. It's then easy to identify the relevant commit where we explain the rationale.

I don't have a strong opinion, the other archs also don't seem to care about documenting/enforcing it.

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb






[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux