On 06.07.23 14:32, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
On 7/6/23 4:44 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 06.07.23 11:36, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
On 7/6/23 2:48 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 06.07.23 10:50, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
With memmap on memory, some architecture needs more details w.r.t altmap
such as base_pfn, end_pfn, etc to unmap vmemmap memory.
Can you elaborate why ppc64 needs that and x86-64 + aarch64 don't?
IOW, why can't ppc64 simply allocate the vmemmap from the start of the memblock (-> base_pfn) and use the stored number of vmemmap pages to calculate the end_pfn?
To rephrase: if the vmemmap is not at the beginning and doesn't cover full apgeblocks, memory onlining/offlining would be broken.
[...]
With ppc64 and 64K pagesize and different memory block sizes, we can end up allocating vmemmap backing memory from outside altmap because
a single page vmemmap can cover 1024 pages (64 *1024/sizeof(struct page)). and that can point to pages outside the dev_pagemap range.
So on free we check
So you end up with a mixture of altmap and ordinarily-allocated vmemmap pages? That sound wrong (and is counter-intuitive to the feature in general, where we *don't* want to allocate the vmemmap from outside the altmap).
(64 * 1024) / sizeof(struct page) -> 1024 pages
1024 pages * 64k = 64 MiB.
What's the memory block size on these systems? If it's >= 64 MiB the vmemmap of a single memory block fits into a single page and we should be fine.
Smells like you want to disable the feature on a 64k system.
But that part of vmemmap_free is common for both dax,dax kmem and the new memmap on memory feature. ie, ppc64 vmemmap_free have checks which require
a full altmap structure with all the details in. So for memmap on memmory to work on ppc64 we do require similar altmap struct. Hence the idea
of adding vmemmap_altmap to struct memory_block
I'd suggest making sure that for the memmap_on_memory case your really
*always* allocate from the altmap (that's what the feature is about
after all), and otherwise block the feature (i.e., arch_mhp_supports_...
should reject it).
Then, you can reconstruct the altmap layout trivially
base_pfn: start of the range to unplug
end_pfn: base_pfn + nr_vmemmap_pages
and pass that to the removal code, which will do the right thing, no?
Sure, remembering the altmap might be a potential cleanup (eventually?),
but the basic reasoning why this is required as patch #1 IMHO is wrong:
if you say you support memmap_on_memory for a configuration, then you
should also properly support it (allocate from the hotplugged memory),
not silently fall back to something else.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
