On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 06:37:34 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 02:24 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 05:59:16 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 01:17 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 04:45:40 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 00:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 03:03:49 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 14:11 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:59:45 PM Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Updated patch is appended for completness.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, this updated patch solved the locking issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > A more general issue is that there are now two memory offlining efforts:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) from acpi_bus_offline_companions during device offline
> > > > > > > > > > > 2) from mm: remove_memory during device detach (offline_memory_block_cb)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The 2nd is only called if the device offline operation was already succesful, so
> > > > > > > > > > > it seems ineffective or redundant now, at least for x86_64/acpi_memhotplug machine
> > > > > > > > > > > (unless the blocks were re-onlined in between).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sure, and that should be OK for now. Changing the detach behavior is not
> > > > > > > > > > essential from the patch [2/2] perspective, we can do it later.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > yes, ok.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, the 2nd effort has some more intelligence in offlining, as it
> > > > > > > > > > > tries to offline twice in the precense of memcg, see commits df3e1b91 or
> > > > > > > > > > > reworked 0baeab16. Maybe we need to consolidate the logic.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hmm. Perhaps it would make sense to implement that logic in
> > > > > > > > > > memory_subsys_offline(), then?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > the logic tries to offline the memory blocks of the device twice, because the
> > > > > > > > > first memory block might be storing information for the subsequent memblocks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > memory_subsys_offline operates on one memory block at a time. Perhaps we can get
> > > > > > > > > the same effect if we do an acpi_walk of acpi_bus_offline_companions twice in
> > > > > > > > > acpi_scan_hot_remove but it's probably not a good idea, since that would
> > > > > > > > > affect non-memory devices as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am not sure how important this intelligence is in practice (I am not using
> > > > > > > > > mem cgroups in my guest kernel tests yet). Maybe Wen (original author) has
> > > > > > > > > more details on 2-pass offlining effectiveness.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OK
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It may be added in a separate patch in any case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I had the same comment as Vasilis. And, I agree with you that we can
> > > > > > > enhance it in separate patches.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +static int memory_subsys_offline(struct device *dev)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > + struct memory_block *mem = container_of(dev, struct memory_block, dev);
> > > > > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + mutex_lock(&mem->state_mutex);
> > > > > > > > + ret = __memory_block_change_state(mem, MEM_OFFLINE, MEM_ONLINE, -1);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This function needs to check mem->state just like
> > > > > > > offline_memory_block(). That is:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > int ret = 0;
> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > if (mem->state != MEM_OFFLINE)
> > > > > > > ret = __memory_block_change_state(...);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Otherwise, memory hot-delete to an off-lined memory fails in
> > > > > > > __memory_block_change_state() since mem->state is already set to
> > > > > > > MEM_OFFLINE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With that change, for the series:
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, one more update, then (appended).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That said I thought that the check against dev->offline in device_offline()
> > > > > > would be sufficient to guard agaist that. Is there any "offline" code path
> > > > > > I didn't take into account?
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, you are right about that. The real problem is that dev->offline is
> > > > > set to false (0) when a new memory is hot-added in off-line state. So,
> > > > > instead, dev->offline needs to be set properly.
> > > >
> > > > OK, where does that happen?
> > >
> > > It's a bit messy, but the following change seems to work. A tricky part
> > > is that online() is not called during boot, so I needed to update the
> > > offline flag in __memory_block_change_state().
> >
> > I wonder why? ->
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/base/memory.c | 5 ++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
> > > index b9dfd34..1c8d781 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
> > > @@ -294,8 +294,10 @@ static int __memory_block_change_state(struct
> > > memory_block *mem,
> > > mem->state = from_state_req;
> > > } else {
> > > mem->state = to_state;
> > > - if (to_state == MEM_ONLINE)
> > > + if (to_state == MEM_ONLINE) {
> > > mem->last_online = online_type;
> > > + mem->dev.offline = false;
> > > + }
> >
> > ->
> >
> > __memory_block_change_state() is called by memory_subsys_online/offline()
> > and by __memory_block_change_state_uevent() only, so it should be sufficient
> > to do this under the switch () in the latter.
> >
> > Still, though, __memory_block_change_state_uevent() is only called (indirectly)
> > from store_mem_state() and by offline_memory_block() the both of which update
> > dev->offline.
> >
> > What's the exact scenario you needed this for?
>
> Right. I was in hurry and made a wrong assumption... This change is
> not necessary.
>
> > > }
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > > @@ -613,6 +615,7 @@ static int init_memory_block(struct memory_block
> > > **memory,
> > > mem->state = state;
> > > mem->last_online = ONLINE_KEEP;
> > > mem->section_count++;
> > > + mem->dev.offline = (state == MEM_OFFLINE) ? true : false;
> >
> > You could write this as
> >
> > + mem->dev.offline = state == MEM_OFFLINE;
>
> Right.
>
> > Moreover, it'd be better to do it in register_memory(), I think.
>
> Yes, if we change register_memory() to have the arg state.
It can use mem->state which already has been populated at this point
(and init_memory_block() is the only called).
I've updated the patch to do that (appended).
Thanks,
Rafael
---
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Driver core: Introduce offline/online callbacks for memory blocks
Introduce .offline() and .online() callbacks for memory_subsys
that will allow the generic device_offline() and device_online()
to be used with device objects representing memory blocks. That,
in turn, allows the ACPI subsystem to use device_offline() to put
removable memory blocks offline, if possible, before removing
memory modules holding them.
The 'online' sysfs attribute of memory block devices will attempt to
put them offline if 0 is written to it and will attempt to apply the
previously used online type when onlining them (i.e. when 1 is
written to it).
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Vasilis Liaskovitis <vasilis.liaskovitis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx>
---
drivers/base/memory.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
include/linux/memory.h | 1
2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/memory.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/memory.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/base/memory.c
@@ -37,9 +37,14 @@ static inline int base_memory_block_id(i
return section_nr / sections_per_block;
}
+static int memory_subsys_online(struct device *dev);
+static int memory_subsys_offline(struct device *dev);
+
static struct bus_type memory_subsys = {
.name = MEMORY_CLASS_NAME,
.dev_name = MEMORY_CLASS_NAME,
+ .online = memory_subsys_online,
+ .offline = memory_subsys_offline,
};
static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(memory_chain);
@@ -88,6 +93,7 @@ int register_memory(struct memory_block
memory->dev.bus = &memory_subsys;
memory->dev.id = memory->start_section_nr / sections_per_block;
memory->dev.release = memory_block_release;
+ memory->dev.offline = memory->state == MEM_OFFLINE;
error = device_register(&memory->dev);
return error;
@@ -278,33 +284,70 @@ static int __memory_block_change_state(s
{
int ret = 0;
- if (mem->state != from_state_req) {
- ret = -EINVAL;
- goto out;
- }
+ if (mem->state != from_state_req)
+ return -EINVAL;
if (to_state == MEM_OFFLINE)
mem->state = MEM_GOING_OFFLINE;
ret = memory_block_action(mem->start_section_nr, to_state, online_type);
-
if (ret) {
mem->state = from_state_req;
- goto out;
+ } else {
+ mem->state = to_state;
+ if (to_state == MEM_ONLINE)
+ mem->last_online = online_type;
}
+ return ret;
+}
- mem->state = to_state;
- switch (mem->state) {
- case MEM_OFFLINE:
- kobject_uevent(&mem->dev.kobj, KOBJ_OFFLINE);
- break;
- case MEM_ONLINE:
- kobject_uevent(&mem->dev.kobj, KOBJ_ONLINE);
- break;
- default:
- break;
+static int memory_subsys_online(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct memory_block *mem = container_of(dev, struct memory_block, dev);
+ int ret;
+
+ mutex_lock(&mem->state_mutex);
+
+ ret = mem->state == MEM_ONLINE ? 0 :
+ __memory_block_change_state(mem, MEM_ONLINE, MEM_OFFLINE,
+ mem->last_online);
+
+ mutex_unlock(&mem->state_mutex);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static int memory_subsys_offline(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct memory_block *mem = container_of(dev, struct memory_block, dev);
+ int ret;
+
+ mutex_lock(&mem->state_mutex);
+
+ ret = mem->state == MEM_OFFLINE ? 0 :
+ __memory_block_change_state(mem, MEM_OFFLINE, MEM_ONLINE, -1);
+
+ mutex_unlock(&mem->state_mutex);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static int __memory_block_change_state_uevent(struct memory_block *mem,
+ unsigned long to_state, unsigned long from_state_req,
+ int online_type)
+{
+ int ret = __memory_block_change_state(mem, to_state, from_state_req,
+ online_type);
+ if (!ret) {
+ switch (mem->state) {
+ case MEM_OFFLINE:
+ kobject_uevent(&mem->dev.kobj, KOBJ_OFFLINE);
+ break;
+ case MEM_ONLINE:
+ kobject_uevent(&mem->dev.kobj, KOBJ_ONLINE);
+ break;
+ default:
+ break;
+ }
}
-out:
return ret;
}
@@ -315,8 +358,8 @@ static int memory_block_change_state(str
int ret;
mutex_lock(&mem->state_mutex);
- ret = __memory_block_change_state(mem, to_state, from_state_req,
- online_type);
+ ret = __memory_block_change_state_uevent(mem, to_state, from_state_req,
+ online_type);
mutex_unlock(&mem->state_mutex);
return ret;
@@ -326,22 +369,34 @@ store_mem_state(struct device *dev,
struct device_attribute *attr, const char *buf, size_t count)
{
struct memory_block *mem;
+ bool offline;
int ret = -EINVAL;
mem = container_of(dev, struct memory_block, dev);
- if (!strncmp(buf, "online_kernel", min_t(int, count, 13)))
+ lock_device_hotplug();
+
+ if (!strncmp(buf, "online_kernel", min_t(int, count, 13))) {
+ offline = false;
ret = memory_block_change_state(mem, MEM_ONLINE,
MEM_OFFLINE, ONLINE_KERNEL);
- else if (!strncmp(buf, "online_movable", min_t(int, count, 14)))
+ } else if (!strncmp(buf, "online_movable", min_t(int, count, 14))) {
+ offline = false;
ret = memory_block_change_state(mem, MEM_ONLINE,
MEM_OFFLINE, ONLINE_MOVABLE);
- else if (!strncmp(buf, "online", min_t(int, count, 6)))
+ } else if (!strncmp(buf, "online", min_t(int, count, 6))) {
+ offline = false;
ret = memory_block_change_state(mem, MEM_ONLINE,
MEM_OFFLINE, ONLINE_KEEP);
- else if(!strncmp(buf, "offline", min_t(int, count, 7)))
+ } else if(!strncmp(buf, "offline", min_t(int, count, 7))) {
+ offline = true;
ret = memory_block_change_state(mem, MEM_OFFLINE,
MEM_ONLINE, -1);
+ }
+ if (!ret)
+ dev->offline = offline;
+
+ unlock_device_hotplug();
if (ret)
return ret;
@@ -563,6 +618,7 @@ static int init_memory_block(struct memo
base_memory_block_id(scn_nr) * sections_per_block;
mem->end_section_nr = mem->start_section_nr + sections_per_block - 1;
mem->state = state;
+ mem->last_online = ONLINE_KEEP;
mem->section_count++;
mutex_init(&mem->state_mutex);
start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem->start_section_nr);
@@ -681,14 +737,20 @@ int unregister_memory_section(struct mem
/*
* offline one memory block. If the memory block has been offlined, do nothing.
+ *
+ * Call under device_hotplug_lock.
*/
int offline_memory_block(struct memory_block *mem)
{
int ret = 0;
mutex_lock(&mem->state_mutex);
- if (mem->state != MEM_OFFLINE)
- ret = __memory_block_change_state(mem, MEM_OFFLINE, MEM_ONLINE, -1);
+ if (mem->state != MEM_OFFLINE) {
+ ret = __memory_block_change_state_uevent(mem, MEM_OFFLINE,
+ MEM_ONLINE, -1);
+ if (!ret)
+ mem->dev.offline = true;
+ }
mutex_unlock(&mem->state_mutex);
return ret;
Index: linux-pm/include/linux/memory.h
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/memory.h
+++ linux-pm/include/linux/memory.h
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ struct memory_block {
unsigned long start_section_nr;
unsigned long end_section_nr;
unsigned long state;
+ int last_online;
int section_count;
/*
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>