Re: [PATCH] mm/hotplug: Only respect mem= parameter during boot stage

[David Hildenbrand]

On 09.12.19 12:08, JÃrgen Groà wrote:
> On 09.12.19 12:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 09.12.19 11:24, JÃrgen Groà wrote:
>>> On 09.12.19 11:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Fri 06-12-19 23:05:24, Baoquan He wrote:
>>>>> In commit 357b4da50a62 ("x86: respect memory size limiting via mem=
>>>>> parameter") a global varialbe global max_mem_size is added to store
>>>>> the value which is parsed from 'mem= '. This truly stops those
>>>>> DIMM from being added into system memory during boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it also limits the later memory hotplug functionality. Any
>>>>> memory board can't be hot added any more if its region is beyond the
>>>>> max_mem_size. System will print error like below:
>>>>>
>>>>> [  216.387164] acpi PNP0C80:02: add_memory failed
>>>>> [  216.389301] acpi PNP0C80:02: acpi_memory_enable_device() error
>>>>> [  216.392187] acpi PNP0C80:02: Enumeration failure
>>>>>
>>>>> >From document of 'mem =' parameter, it should be a restriction during
>>>>> boot, but not impact the system memory adding/removing after booting.
>>>>>
>>>>>     mem=nn[KMG]     [KNL,BOOT] Force usage of a specific amount of memory
>>>>>
>>>>> So fix it by also checking if it's during SYSTEM_BOOTING stage when
>>>>> restrict memory adding. Otherwise, skip the restriction.
>>>>
>>>> Could you be more specific about why the boot vs. later hotplug makes
>>>> any difference? The documentation is explicit about the boot time but
>>>> considering this seems to be like that since ever I strongly suspect
>>>> that this is just an omission.
>>>>
>>>> Btw. how have you tested the situation fixed by 357b4da50a62?
>>>
>>> I guess he hasn't.
>>>
>>> The backtrace of the problem at that time was:
>>>
>>> [ 8321.876844]  [<ffffffff81019ab9>] dump_trace+0x59/0x340
>>> [ 8321.882683]  [<ffffffff81019e8a>] show_stack_log_lvl+0xea/0x170
>>> [ 8321.889298]  [<ffffffff8101ac31>] show_stack+0x21/0x40
>>> [ 8321.895043]  [<ffffffff81319530>] dump_stack+0x5c/0x7c
>>> [ 8321.900779]  [<ffffffff8107fbf1>] warn_slowpath_common+0x81/0xb0
>>> [ 8321.907482]  [<ffffffff81009f54>] xen_alloc_pte+0x1d4/0x390
>>> [ 8321.913718]  [<ffffffff81064950>]
>>> pmd_populate_kernel.constprop.6+0x40/0x80
>>> [ 8321.921498]  [<ffffffff815ef0a8>] phys_pmd_init+0x210/0x255
>>> [ 8321.927724]  [<ffffffff815ef2c7>] phys_pud_init+0x1da/0x247
>>> [ 8321.933951]  [<ffffffff815efb81>] kernel_physical_mapping_init+0xf5/0x1d4
>>> [ 8321.941533]  [<ffffffff815ebc7d>] init_memory_mapping+0x18d/0x380
>>> [ 8321.948341]  [<ffffffff810647f9>] arch_add_memory+0x59/0xf0
>>> [ 8321.954570]  [<ffffffff815eceed>] add_memory_resource+0x8d/0x160
>>> [ 8321.961283]  [<ffffffff815ecff2>] add_memory+0x32/0xf0
>>> [ 8321.967025]  [<ffffffff813e1c91>] acpi_memory_device_add+0x131/0x2e0
>>> [ 8321.974128]  [<ffffffff8139f752>] acpi_bus_attach+0xe2/0x190
>>> [ 8321.980453]  [<ffffffff8139f6ce>] acpi_bus_attach+0x5e/0x190
>>> [ 8321.986778]  [<ffffffff8139f6ce>] acpi_bus_attach+0x5e/0x190
>>> [ 8321.993103]  [<ffffffff8139f6ce>] acpi_bus_attach+0x5e/0x190
>>> [ 8321.999428]  [<ffffffff813a1157>] acpi_bus_scan+0x37/0x70
>>> [ 8322.005461]  [<ffffffff81fba955>] acpi_scan_init+0x77/0x1b4
>>> [ 8322.011690]  [<ffffffff81fba70c>] acpi_init+0x297/0x2b3
>>> [ 8322.017530]  [<ffffffff8100213a>] do_one_initcall+0xca/0x1f0
>>> [ 8322.023855]  [<ffffffff81f74266>] kernel_init_freeable+0x194/0x226
>>> [ 8322.030760]  [<ffffffff815eb1ba>] kernel_init+0xa/0xe0
>>> [ 8322.036503]  [<ffffffff815f7bc5>] ret_from_fork+0x55/0x80
>>>
>>> So this patch would break it again.
>>>
>>> I'd recommend ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 357b4da50a62 ("x86: respect memory size limiting via mem= parameter")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    mm/memory_hotplug.c | 2 +-
>>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>>> index 55ac23ef11c1..5466a0a00901 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>>> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static struct resource *register_memory_resource(u64 start, u64 size)
>>>>>    	unsigned long flags =  IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
>>>>>    	char *resource_name = "System RAM";
>>>>>    
>>>>> -	if (start + size > max_mem_size)
>>>>> +	if (start + size > max_mem_size && system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING)
>>>
>>> ... changing this to: ... && system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING
>>
>> I think we usually use system_state < SYSTEM_RUNNING
>>
> 
> Works for me as well. :-)
> 

As this patch has to be resent, I'd also enjoy a comment explaining why
this special check is in place

/* Make sure memory hotplug works although mem= was specified */

or sth. like that :)

> 
> Juergen
> 


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb