LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, mhocko@suse.com,
	mgorman@techsingularity.net, james.morse@arm.com,
	robin.murphy@arm.com, cpandya@codeaurora.org,
	arunks@codeaurora.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
	osalvador@suse.de, david@redhat.com, cai@lca.pw,
	logang@deltatee.com, ira.weiny@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 4/4] arm64/mm: Enable memory hot remove
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 08:45:27 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f83469e3-c514-cc37-a7d0-c8b57e242ebe@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190516105741.GC40960@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>



On 05/16/2019 04:27 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 11:04:48AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 05/15/2019 05:19 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:30:07PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> Memory removal from an arch perspective involves tearing down two different
>>>> kernel based mappings i.e vmemmap and linear while releasing related page
>>>> table and any mapped pages allocated for given physical memory range to be
>>>> removed.
>>>>
>>>> Define a common kernel page table tear down helper remove_pagetable() which
>>>> can be used to unmap given kernel virtual address range. In effect it can
>>>> tear down both vmemap or kernel linear mappings. This new helper is called
>>>> from both vmemamp_free() and ___remove_pgd_mapping() during memory removal.
>>>>
>>>> For linear mapping there are no actual allocated pages which are mapped to
>>>> create the translation. Any pfn on a given entry is derived from physical
>>>> address (__va(PA) --> PA) whose linear translation is to be created. They
>>>> need not be freed as they were never allocated in the first place. But for
>>>> vmemmap which is a real virtual mapping (like vmalloc) physical pages are
>>>> allocated either from buddy or memblock which get mapped in the kernel page
>>>> table. These allocated and mapped pages need to be freed during translation
>>>> tear down. But page table pages need to be freed in both these cases.
>>>
>>> As previously discussed, we should only hot-remove memory which was
>>> hot-added, so we shouldn't encounter memory allocated from memblock.
>>
>> Right, not applicable any more. Will drop this word.
>>
>>>> These mappings need to be differentiated while deciding if a mapped page at
>>>> any level i.e [pte|pmd|pud]_page() should be freed or not. Callers for the
>>>> mapping tear down process should pass on 'sparse_vmap' variable identifying
>>>> kernel vmemmap mappings.
>>>
>>> I think that you can simplify the paragraphs above down to:
>>>
>>>   The arch code for hot-remove must tear down portions of the linear map
>>>   and vmemmap corresponding to memory being removed. In both cases the
>>>   page tables mapping these regions must be freed, and when sparse
>>>   vmemmap is in use the memory backing the vmemmap must also be freed.
>>>
>>>   This patch adds a new remove_pagetable() helper which can be used to
>>>   tear down either region, and calls it from vmemmap_free() and
>>>   ___remove_pgd_mapping(). The sparse_vmap argument determines whether
>>>   the backing memory will be freed.
>>
>> The current one is bit more descriptive on detail. Anyways will replace with
>> the above writeup if that is preferred.
> 
> I would prefer the suggested form above, as it's easier to extract the
> necessary details from it.

Fair enough.

> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> +static void
>>>> +remove_pagetable(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, bool sparse_vmap)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	unsigned long addr, next;
>>>> +	pud_t *pudp_base;
>>>> +	pgd_t *pgdp;
>>>> +
>>>> +	spin_lock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
>>>
>>> It would be good to explain why we need to take the ptl here.
>>
>> Will update both commit message and add an in-code comment here.
>>
>>>
>>> IIUC that shouldn't be necessary for the linear map. Am I mistaken?
>>
>> Its not absolutely necessary for linear map right now because both memory hot
>> plug & ptdump which modifies or walks the page table ranges respectively take
>> memory hotplug lock. That apart, no other callers creates or destroys linear
>> mapping at runtime.
>>
>>>
>>> Is there a specific race when tearing down the vmemmap?
>>
>> This is trickier than linear map. vmemmap additions would be protected with
>> memory hotplug lock but this can potential collide with vmalloc/IO regions.
>> Even if they dont right now that will be because they dont share intermediate
>> page table levels.
> 
> Sure; if we could just state something like:
> 
>   The vmemmap region may share levels of table with the vmalloc region.
>   Take the ptl so that we can safely free potentially-sahred tables.
> 
> ... I think that would be sufficient.

Will do.

  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-17  3:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-14  9:00 [PATCH V3 0/4] " Anshuman Khandual
2019-05-14  9:00 ` [PATCH V3 1/4] mm/hotplug: Reorder arch_remove_memory() call in __remove_memory() Anshuman Khandual
2019-05-14  9:05   ` David Hildenbrand
2019-05-14  9:00 ` [PATCH V3 2/4] arm64/mm: Hold memory hotplug lock while walking for kernel page table dump Anshuman Khandual
2019-05-14  9:16   ` David Hildenbrand
2019-05-14 15:40   ` Mark Rutland
2019-05-15  1:56     ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-05-15 16:58   ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-16 10:23     ` Mark Rutland
2019-05-16 11:05       ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-22 16:42         ` Mark Rutland
2019-05-24  6:06           ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-05-27  7:20           ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-28 14:09             ` Mark Rutland
2019-05-16 11:06       ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-05-16 11:16         ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-23  8:40           ` David Hildenbrand
2019-05-24  5:43             ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-05-14  9:00 ` [PATCH V3 3/4] arm64/mm: Inhibit huge-vmap with ptdump Anshuman Khandual
2019-05-14  9:20   ` David Hildenbrand
2019-05-16  8:38   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-05-14  9:00 ` [PATCH V3 4/4] arm64/mm: Enable memory hot remove Anshuman Khandual
2019-05-14  9:08   ` David Hildenbrand
2019-05-15 11:49   ` Mark Rutland
2019-05-16  5:34     ` Anshuman Khandual
2019-05-16 10:57       ` Mark Rutland
2019-05-17  3:15         ` Anshuman Khandual [this message]
2019-05-14  9:10 ` [PATCH V3 0/4] " David Hildenbrand

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=f83469e3-c514-cc37-a7d0-c8b57e242ebe@arm.com \
    --to=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arunks@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=cai@lca.pw \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=cpandya@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=logang@deltatee.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=osalvador@suse.de \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH V3 4/4] arm64/mm: Enable memory hot remove' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).