[PATCH v6 02/15] memory-hotplug: check whether all memory blocks are offlined or not when removing memory

Tang Chen tangchen at cn.fujitsu.com
Thu Jan 10 16:56:07 EST 2013

Hi Andrew,

On 01/10/2013 07:11 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 17:32:26 +0800
> Tang Chen<tangchen at cn.fujitsu.com>  wrote:
>> We remove the memory like this:
>> 1. lock memory hotplug
>> 2. offline a memory block
>> 3. unlock memory hotplug
>> 4. repeat 1-3 to offline all memory blocks
>> 5. lock memory hotplug
>> 6. remove memory(TODO)
>> 7. unlock memory hotplug
>> All memory blocks must be offlined before removing memory. But we don't hold
>> the lock in the whole operation. So we should check whether all memory blocks
>> are offlined before step6. Otherwise, kernel maybe panicked.
> Well, the obvious question is: why don't we hold lock_memory_hotplug()
> for all of steps 1-4?  Please send the reasons for this in a form which
> I can paste into the changelog.

In the changelog form:

Offlining a memory block and removing a memory device can be two
different operations. Users can just offline some memory blocks
without removing the memory device. For this purpose, the kernel has
held lock_memory_hotplug() in __offline_pages(). To reuse the code
for memory hot-remove, we repeat step 1-3 to offline all the memory
blocks, repeatedly lock and unlock memory hotplug, but not hold the
memory hotplug lock in the whole operation.

> Actually, I wonder if doing this would fix a race in the current
> remove_memory() repeat: loop.  That code does a
> find_memory_block_hinted() followed by offline_memory_block(), but
> afaict find_memory_block_hinted() only does a get_device().  Is the
> get_device() sufficiently strong to prevent problems if another thread
> concurrently offlines or otherwise alters this memory_block's state?

I think we already have memory_block->state_mutex to protect the
concurrently changing of memory_block's state.

The find_memory_block_hinted() here is to find the memory_block
corresponding to the memory section we are dealing with.

Thanks. :)


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list