[PATCH 2/3] hotplug-memory.c: enhance dlpar_memory_remove* LMB checks

[David Gibson]

On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 01:36:06PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/3/21 10:02 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 09:09:16AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > > dlpar_memory_remove_by_ic() validates the amount of LMBs to be removed
> > > by checking !DRCONF_MEM_RESERVED, and in the following loop before
> > > dlpar_remove_lmb() a check for DRCONF_MEM_ASSIGNED is made before
> > > removing it. This means that a LMB that is both !DRCONF_MEM_RESERVED and
> > > !DRCONF_MEM_ASSIGNED will be counted as valid, but then not being
> > > removed.  The function will end up not removing all 'lmbs_to_remove'
> > > LMBs while also not reporting any errors.
> > > 
> > > Comparing it to dlpar_memory_remove_by_count(), the validation is done
> > > via lmb_is_removable(), which checks for DRCONF_MEM_ASSIGNED and fadump
> > > constraints. No additional check is made afterwards, and
> > > DRCONF_MEM_RESERVED is never checked before dlpar_remove_lmb(). The
> > > function doesn't have the same 'check A for validation, then B for
> > > removal' issue as remove_by_ic(), but it's not checking if the LMB is
> > > reserved.
> > > 
> > > There is no reason for these functions to validate the same operation in
> > > two different manners.
> > 
> > Actually, I think there is: remove_by_ic() is handling a request to
> > remove a specific range of LMBs.  If any are reserved, they can't be
> > removed and so this needs to fail.  But if they are !ASSIGNED, that
> > essentially means they're *already* removed (or never added), so
> > "removing" them is, correctly, a no-op.
> 
> I guess that makes sense. Although I am not aware of any situation, at least
> thinking about how QEMU adds/removes LMBs, where some LMBs would be removed
> 'ad-hoc' in the middle of a LMB range that maps to a QEMU DIMM, I can't say
> that this wouldn't never happen either.

Right.  I believe a user could explicitly offline LMBs in the middle
of a DIMM. There's not much reason to do so, but it's possible.  There
might also be situations involving memory errors where individual LMBs
could get offlined.

> It is sensible to make remove_by_ic()
> resilient to this situation.
> 
> I'll re-send this patch just with the remove_by_count() change.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Daniel
> 
> > 
> > remove_by_count(), in contrast, is being asked to remove a fixed
> > number of LMBs from wherever they can be found, and for that it needs
> > to find LMBs that haven't already been removed.
> > 
> > Basically remove_by_ic() is an absolute request: "make this set of
> > LMBs be not-plugged", whereas remove_by_count() is a relative request
> > "make N less LMBs be plugged".
> > 
> > 
> > So I think remove_by_ic()s existing handling is correct.  I'm less
> > sure if remove_by_count() ignoring RESERVED is correct - I couldn't
> > quickly find under what circumstances RESERVED gets set.
> > 
> > 
> > > This patch addresses that by changing
> > > lmb_is_removable() to also check for DRCONF_MEM_RESERVED to tell if a
> > > lmb is removable, making dlpar_memory_remove_by_count() take the
> > > reservation state into account when counting the LMBs.
> > > lmb_is_removable() is then used in the validation step of
> > > dlpar_memory_remove_by_ic(), which is already checking for both states
> > > but in different stages, to avoid counting a LMB that is not assigned as
> > > eligible for removal. We can then skip the check before
> > > dlpar_remove_lmb() since we're validating all LMBs beforehand.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413 at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c | 8 +++-----
> > >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c
> > > index bb98574a84a2..4e6d162c3f1a 100644
> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c
> > > @@ -348,7 +348,8 @@ static int pseries_remove_mem_node(struct device_node *np)
> > >   static bool lmb_is_removable(struct drmem_lmb *lmb)
> > >   {
> > > -	if (!(lmb->flags & DRCONF_MEM_ASSIGNED))
> > > +	if ((lmb->flags & DRCONF_MEM_RESERVED) ||
> > > +		!(lmb->flags & DRCONF_MEM_ASSIGNED))
> > >   		return false;
> > >   #ifdef CONFIG_FA_DUMP
> > > @@ -523,7 +524,7 @@ static int dlpar_memory_remove_by_ic(u32 lmbs_to_remove, u32 drc_index)
> > >   	/* Validate that there are enough LMBs to satisfy the request */
> > >   	for_each_drmem_lmb_in_range(lmb, start_lmb, end_lmb) {
> > > -		if (lmb->flags & DRCONF_MEM_RESERVED)
> > > +		if (!lmb_is_removable(lmb))
> > >   			break;
> > >   		lmbs_available++;
> > > @@ -533,9 +534,6 @@ static int dlpar_memory_remove_by_ic(u32 lmbs_to_remove, u32 drc_index)
> > >   		return -EINVAL;
> > >   	for_each_drmem_lmb_in_range(lmb, start_lmb, end_lmb) {
> > > -		if (!(lmb->flags & DRCONF_MEM_ASSIGNED))
> > > -			continue;
> > > -
> > >   		rc = dlpar_remove_lmb(lmb);
> > >   		if (rc)
> > >   			break;
> > 
> 

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/attachments/20210509/1375c33a/attachment.sig>