[PATCH] migration/mm: Add WARN_ON to try_offline_node
Tyrel Datwyler
tyreld at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Tue Oct 2 09:20:30 AEST 2018
On 10/01/2018 01:27 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 01-10-18 13:56:25, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>> In some LPAR migration scenarios, device-tree modifications are
>> made to the affinity of the memory in the system. For instance,
>> it may occur that memory is installed to nodes 0,3 on a source
>> system, and to nodes 0,2 on a target system. Node 2 may not
>> have been initialized/allocated on the target system.
>>
>> After migration, if a RTAS PRRN memory remove is made to a
>> memory block that was in node 3 on the source system, then
>> try_offline_node tries to remove it from node 2 on the target.
>> The NODE_DATA(2) block would not be initialized on the target,
>> and there is no validation check in the current code to prevent
>> the use of a NULL pointer.
>
> I am not familiar with ppc and the above doesn't really help me
> much. Sorry about that. But from the above it is not clear to me whether
> it is the caller which does something unexpected or the hotplug code
> being not robust enough. From your changelog I would suggest the later
> but why don't we see the same problem for other archs? Is this a problem
> of unrolling a partial failure?
>
> dlpar_remove_lmb does the following
>
> nid = memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(lmb->base_addr);
>
> remove_memory(nid, lmb->base_addr, block_sz);
>
> /* Update memory regions for memory remove */
> memblock_remove(lmb->base_addr, block_sz);
>
> dlpar_remove_device_tree_lmb(lmb);
>
> Is the whole operation correct when remove_memory simply backs off
> silently. Why don't we have to care about memblock resp
> dlpar_remove_device_tree_lmb parts? In other words how come the physical
> memory range is valid while the node association is not?
>
I think the issue here is a race between the LPM code updating affinity and PRRN events being processed. Does your other patch[1] not fix the issue? Or is it that the LPM affinity updates don't do any of the initialization/allocation you mentioned?
-Tyrel
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20181001185603.11373.61650.stgit@ltcalpine2-lp9.aus.stglabs.ibm.com/T/#u
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list