On 2015/4/21 2:23, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:42:10 +0800
> Xishi Qiu <qiuxi...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015/4/20 11:29, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:45:45 +0800
>>> Xishi Qiu <qiuxi...@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015/4/20 9:42, Gu Zheng wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Xishi,
>>>>> On 04/18/2015 04:05 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your patches will fix your issue.
>>>>>> But, if BIOS reports memory first at node hot add, pgdat can
>>>>>> not be initialized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Memory hot add flows are as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> add_memory
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> -> hotadd_new_pgdat()
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> -> node_set_online(nid)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When calling hotadd_new_pgdat() for a hot added node, the node is
>>>>>> offline because node_set_online() is not called yet. So if applying
>>>>>> your patches, the pgdat is not initialized in this case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ishimtasu's worry is reasonable. And I am afraid the fix here is a bit
>>>>> over-kill.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Yasuaki Ishimatsu
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:50:32 +0800
>>>>>> Xishi Qiu <qiuxi...@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hot remove nodeXX, then hot add nodeXX. If BIOS report cpu first, it
>>>>>>> will call
>>>>>>> hotadd_new_pgdat(nid, 0), this will set pgdat->node_start_pfn to 0. As
>>>>>>> nodeXX
>>>>>>> exists at boot time, so pgdat->node_spanned_pages is the same as
>>>>>>> original. Then
>>>>>>> free_area_init_core()->memmap_init() will pass a wrong start and a
>>>>>>> nonzero size.
>>>>>
>>>>> As your analysis said the root cause here is passing a *0* as the
>>>>> node_start_pfn,
>>>>> then the chaos occurred when init the zones. And this only happens to the
>>>>> re-hotadd
>>>>> node, so how about using the saved *node_start_pfn* (via
>>>>> get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn))
>>>>> instead if we find "pgdat->node_start_pfn == 0 && !node_online(XXX)"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Gu
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Gu,
>>>>
>>>> I first considered this method, but if the hot added node's start and size
>>>> are different
>>>> from before, it makes the chaos.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> e.g.
>>>> nodeXX (8-16G)
>>>> remove nodeXX
>>>> BIOS report cpu first and online it
>>>> hotadd nodeXX
>>>> use the original value, so pgdat->node_start_pfn is set to 8G, and size is
>>>> 8G
>>>> BIOS report mem(10-12G)
>>>> call add_memory()->__add_zone()->grow_zone_span()/grow_pgdat_span()
>>>> the start is still 8G, not 10G, this is chaos!
>>>
>>> If you set CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP, kernel shows the following
>>> pr_info()'s message.
>>>
>>> void __paginginit free_area_init_node(int nid, unsigned long *zones_size,
>>> unsigned long node_start_pfn, unsigned long *zholes_size)
>>> {
>>> ...
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP
>>> get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn);
>>> pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n", nid,
>>> (u64)start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, ((u64)end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT)
>>> - 1);
>>> #endif
>>> }
>>>
>>> Is the memory range of the message "8G - 16G"?
>>> If so, the reason is that memblk is not deleted at memory hot remove.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yasuaki Ishimatsu
>>>
>>
>> Hi Yasuaki,
>>
>
>> By reading the code, I find memblk is not deleted at memory hot remove.
>> I am not sure whether we should remove it. If remove it, we should also reset
>> "arch_zone_lowest_possible_pfn", right? It seems a little complicated.
>
> I think memblk should be added/removed by hot adding/removing memory.
> But, arch_zone_lowest_possible_pfn should not be changed.
>
Ok, thanks for your suggestion.
> Thanks,
> Yasuaki Ishimatsu
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Xishi Qiu
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Xishi Qiu
>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> .
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
