[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFCv2 3/6] mm/memory_hotplug: fix online/offline_pages called w.o. mem_hotplug_lock
On 8/21/18 6:44 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > There seem to be some problems as result of 30467e0b3be ("mm, hotplug: > fix concurrent memory hot-add deadlock"), which tried to fix a possible > lock inversion reported and discussed in [1] due to the two locks > a) device_lock() > b) mem_hotplug_lock > > While add_memory() first takes b), followed by a) during > bus_probe_device(), onlining of memory from user space first took b), > followed by a), exposing a possible deadlock. > > In [1], and it was decided to not make use of device_hotplug_lock, but > rather to enforce a locking order. > > The problems I spotted related to this: > > 1. Memory block device attributes: While .state first calls > mem_hotplug_begin() and the calls device_online() - which takes > device_lock() - .online does no longer call mem_hotplug_begin(), so > effectively calls online_pages() without mem_hotplug_lock. > > 2. device_online() should be called under device_hotplug_lock, however > onlining memory during add_memory() does not take care of that. > > In addition, I think there is also something wrong about the locking in > > 3. arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/memtrace.c calls offline_pages() > without locks. This was introduced after 30467e0b3be. And skimming over > the code, I assume it could need some more care in regards to locking > (e.g. device_online() called without device_hotplug_lock - but I'll > not touch that for now). > > Now that we hold the device_hotplug_lock when > - adding memory (e.g. via add_memory()/add_memory_resource()) > - removing memory (e.g. via remove_memory()) > - device_online()/device_offline() > > We can move mem_hotplug_lock usage back into > online_pages()/offline_pages(). > > Why is mem_hotplug_lock still needed? Essentially to make > get_online_mems()/put_online_mems() be very fast (relying on > device_hotplug_lock would be very slow), and to serialize against > addition of memory that does not create memory block devices (hmm). > > [1] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/ driverdev-devel/ > 2015-February/065324.html > > This patch is partly based on a patch by Vitaly Kuznetsov. Reviewed-by: Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |