On Fri 24-11-17 14:49:17, Andrea Reale wrote:

Hi Rafael,

On Fri 24 Nov 2017, 15:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Andrea Reale [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Resending the patch adding linux-acpi in CC, as suggested by Rafael.
Everyone else: apologies for the noise.

Commit 242831eb15a0 ("Memory hotplug / ACPI: Simplify memory removal")
introduced an assumption whereas when control
reaches remove_memory the corresponding memory has been already
offlined. In that case, the acpi_memhotplug was making sure that
the assumption held.
This assumption, however, is not necessarily true if offlining
and removal are not done by the same "controller" (for example,
when first offlining via sysfs).

Removing this assumption for the generic remove_memory code
and moving it in the specific acpi_memhotplug code. This is
a dependency for the software-aided arm64 offlining and removal
process.

Signed-off-by: Andrea Reale <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Maciej Bielski <redacted>
---
 drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c |  2 +-
 include/linux/memory_hotplug.h |  9 ++++++---
 mm/memory_hotplug.c            | 13 +++++++++----
 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c
index 6b0d3ef..b0126a0 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c

@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static void acpi_memory_remove_memory(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device)
                        nid = memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(info->start_addr);

                acpi_unbind_memory_blocks(info);
-               remove_memory(nid, info->start_addr, info->length);
+               BUG_ON(remove_memory(nid, info->start_addr, info->length));

Why does this have to be BUG_ON()?  Is it really necessary to kill the
system here?

Actually, I hoped you would help me understand that: that BUG() call was introduced
by yourself in Commit 242831eb15a0 ("Memory hotplug / ACPI: Simplify memory removal")
in memory_hoptlug.c:remove_memory()). 

Just reading at that commit my understanding was that you were assuming
that acpi_memory_remove_memory() have already done the job of offlining
the target memory, so there would be a bug if that wasn't the case.

In my case, that assumption did not hold and I found that it might not
hold for other platforms that do not use ACPI. In fact, the purpose of
this patch is to move this assumption out of the generic hotplug code
and move it to ACPI code where it originated. 

remove_memory failure is basically impossible to handle AFAIR. The
original code to BUG in remove_memory is ugly as hell and we do not want
to spread that out of that function. Instead we really want to get rid
of it.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs