Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hotplug, x86: Disable ARCH_MEMORY_PROBE by default

[Hush Bensen]

On 07/25/2013 12:02 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 08:18 +0800, Hush Bensen wrote:
> > On 07/24/2013 04:45 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 10:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Could we please also fix it to never crash the kernel, even if stupid
> > > > > > ranges are provided?
> > > > > Yes, this probe interface can be enhanced to verify the firmware
> > > > > information before adding a given memory address.  However, such change
> > > > > would interfere its test use of "fake" hotplug, which is only the known
> > > > > use-case of this interface on x86.
> > > > Not crashing the kernel is not a novel concept even for test interfaces...
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > > Where does the possible crash come from - from using invalid RAM ranges,
> > > > right? I.e. on x86 to fix the crash we need to check the RAM is present in
> > > > the e820 maps, is marked RAM there, and is not already registered with the
> > > > kernel, or so?
> > > Yes, the crash comes from using invalid RAM ranges.  How to check if the
> > > RAM is present is different if the system supports hotplug or not.
> > Could you explain different methods to check the RAM is present if the
> > system supports hotplkug or not?
> e820 and UEFI memory descriptor tables are the boot-time interfaces.
> These interfaces are not required to reflect any run-time changes.
>
> ACPI memory device objects can be used at both boot-time and run-time,
> which reflect any run-time changes.  But they are optional to implement.
> They typically are not implemented unless the system supports hotplug.
>
> > > > > In order to verify if a given memory address is enabled at run-time (as
> > > > > opposed to boot-time), we need to check with ACPI memory device objects
> > > > > on x86.  However, system vendors tend to not implement memory device
> > > > > objects unless their systems support memory hotplug.  Dave Hansen is
> > > > > using this interface for his testing as a way to fake a hotplug event on
> > > > > a system that does not support memory hotplug.
> > > > All vendors implement e820 maps for the memory present at boot time.
> > > Yes for boot time.  At run-time, e820 is not guaranteed to represent a
> > > new memory added.  Here is a quote from ACPI spec.
> > >
> > > ===
> > > 15.1 INT 15H, E820H - Query System Address Map
> > >    :
> > > The memory map conveyed by this interface is not required to reflect any
> > > changes in available physical memory that have occurred after the BIOS
> > > has initially passed control to the operating system. For example, if
> > > memory is added dynamically, this interface is not required to reflect
> > > the new system memory configuration.
> > > ===
> > >
> > > By definition, the "probe" interface is used for the kernel to recognize
> > > a new memory added at run-time.  So, it should check ACPI memory device
> > > objects (which represents run-time state) for the verification.  On x86,
> > > however, ACPI also sends a hotplug event to the kernel, which triggers
> > > the kernel to recognize the new physical memory properly.  Hence, users
> > > do not need this "probe" interface.
> > >
> > > > How is the testing done by Dave Hansen? If it's done by booting with less
> > > > RAM than available (via say the mem=1g boot parameter), and then
> > > > hot-adding some of the missing RAM, then this could be made safe via the
> > > > e820 maps and by consultig the physical memory maps (to avoid double
> > > > registry), right?
> > > If we focus on this test scenario on a system that does not support
> > > hotplug, yes, I agree that we can check with e820 since it is safe to
> > > assume that the system has no change after boot.  IOW, it is unsafe to
> > > check with e820 if the system supports hotplug, but there is no use in
> > > this interface for testing if the system supports hotplug.  So, this may
> > > be a good idea.
> > >
> > > Dave, is this how you are testing?  Do you always specify a valid memory
> > > address for your testing?
> > >
> > > > How does the hotplug event based approach solve double adds? Relies on the
> > > > hardware not sending a hot-add event twice for the same memory area or for
> > > > an invalid memory area, or does it include fail-safes and double checks as
> > > > well to avoid double adds and adding invalid memory? If yes then that
> > > > could be utilized here as well.
> > > In high-level, here is how ACPI memory hotplug works:
> > >
> > > 1. ACPI sends a hotplug event to a new ACPI memory device object that is
> > > hot-added.
> > > 2. The kernel is notified, and verifies if the new memory device object
> > > has not been attached by any handler yet.
> > > 3. The memory handler is called, and obtains a new memory range from the
> > > ACPI memory device object.
> > > 4. The memory handler calls add_memory() with the new address range.
> > >
> > > The above step 1-4 proceeds automatically within the kernel.  No user
> > > input (nor sysfs interface) is necessary.  Step 2 prevents double adds
> > > and step 3 gets a valid address range from the firmware directly.  Step
> > > 4 is basically the same as the "probe" interface, but with all the
> > > verification up front, this step is safe.
> > This is hot-added part, could you also explain how ACPI memory hotplug
> > works for hot-remove?
> Sure.  Here is high-level.
>
> 1. ACPI sends a hotplug event to an ACPI memory device object that is
> requested to hot-remove.
> 2. The kernel is notified, and verifies if the memory device object is
> attached by a handler.
> 3. The memory handler is called (which is being attached), and obtains
> its memory range.
> 4. The memory handler calls remove_memory() with the address range.
> 5. The kernel calls eject method of the ACPI memory device object.

Thanks for your explaination, very useful for me. ;-) Btw, what's the 
eject method done?

> Thanks,
> -Toshi

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/