On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:29:32PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 29.09.21 12:10, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 03:54:48PM -0700, Chris Goldsworthy wrote:
> > > From: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > After new memory blocks have been hotplugged, max_pfn and max_low_pfn
> > > needs updating to reflect on new PFNs being hot added to system.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Goldsworthy <quic_cgoldswo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 5 +++++
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > index cfd9deb..fd85b51 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > @@ -1499,6 +1499,11 @@ int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
> > > if (ret)
> > > __remove_pgd_mapping(swapper_pg_dir,
> > > __phys_to_virt(start), size);
> > > + else {
> > > + max_pfn = PFN_UP(start + size);
> > > + max_low_pfn = max_pfn;
> > > + }
> >
> > We use 'max_pfn' as part of the argument to set_max_mapnr(). Does that need
> > updating as well?
> >
> > Do we have sufficient locking to ensure nobody is looking at max_pfn or
> > max_low_pfn while we update them?
>
> Only the write side is protected by memory hotplug locking. The read side is
> lockless -- just like all of the other pfn_to_online_page() machinery.
Hmm. So the readers can see one of the variables updated but the other one
stale?
Will
