Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] mm/memory_hotplug: fix online/offline_pages called w.o. mem_hotplug_lock
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: 2018-08-17 08:20:59
Also in:
linux-acpi, linux-s390, linuxppc-dev, lkml
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 9:59 AM David Hildenbrand [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
There seem to be some problems as result of 30467e0b3be ("mm, hotplug: fix concurrent memory hot-add deadlock"), which tried to fix a possible lock inversion reported and discussed in [1] due to the two locks a) device_lock() b) mem_hotplug_lock While add_memory() first takes b), followed by a) during bus_probe_device(), onlining of memory from user space first took b), followed by a), exposing a possible deadlock. In [1], and it was decided to not make use of device_hotplug_lock, but rather to enforce a locking order. Looking at 1., this order is not always satisfied when calling device_online() - essentially we simply don't take one of both locks anymore - and fixing this would require us to take the mem_hotplug_lock in core driver code (online_store()), which sounds wrong. The problems I spotted related to this: 1. Memory block device attributes: While .state first calls mem_hotplug_begin() and the calls device_online() - which takes device_lock() - .online does no longer call mem_hotplug_begin(), so effectively calls online_pages() without mem_hotplug_lock. onlining/ offlining of pages is no longer serialised across different devices. 2. device_online() should be called under device_hotplug_lock, however onlining memory during add_memory() does not take care of that. (I didn't follow how strictly this is needed, but there seems to be a reason because it is documented at device_online() and device_offline()). In addition, I think there is also something wrong about the locking in 3. arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/memtrace.c calls offline_pages() (and device_online()) without locks. This was introduced after 30467e0b3be. And skimming over the code, I assume it could need some more care in regards to locking. ACPI code already holds the device_hotplug_lock, and as we are effectively hotplugging memory block devices, requiring to hold that lock does not sound too wrong, although not chosen in [1], as "I don't think resolving a locking dependency is appropriate by just serializing them with another lock." I think this is the cleanest solution. Requiring add_memory()/add_memory_resource() to be called under device_hotplug_lock fixes 2., taking the mem_hotplug_lock in online_pages/offline_pages() fixes 1. and 3. Fixup all callers of add_memory/add_memory_resource to hold the lock if not already done. So this is essentially a revert of 30467e0b3be, implementation of what was suggested in [1] by Vitaly, applied to the current tree. [1] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/ driverdev-devel/ 2015-February/065324.html This patch is partly based on a patch by Vitaly Kuznetsov. Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <redacted> --- arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/memtrace.c | 3 ++ drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c | 1 + drivers/base/memory.c | 18 +++++----- drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c | 4 +++ drivers/s390/char/sclp_cmd.c | 3 ++ drivers/xen/balloon.c | 3 ++ mm/memory_hotplug.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++----- 7 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/memtrace.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/memtrace.c index 51dc398ae3f7..4c2737a33020 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/memtrace.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/memtrace.c@@ -206,6 +206,8 @@ static int memtrace_online(void) int i, ret = 0; struct memtrace_entry *ent; + /* add_memory() requires device_hotplug_lock */ + lock_device_hotplug(); for (i = memtrace_array_nr - 1; i >= 0; i--) { ent = &memtrace_array[i];@@ -244,6 +246,7 @@ static int memtrace_online(void) pr_info("Added trace memory back to node %d\n", ent->nid); ent->size = ent->start = ent->nid = -1; } + unlock_device_hotplug(); if (ret) return ret;diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c index 6b0d3ef7309c..e7a4c7900967 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c@@ -228,6 +228,7 @@ static int acpi_memory_enable_device(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device) if (node < 0) node = memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(info->start_addr); + /* we already hold the device_hotplug lock at this point */ result = add_memory(node, info->start_addr, info->length); /*
A very minor nit here: I would say "device_hotplug_lock is already held at this point" in the comment (I sort of don't like to say "we" in code comments as it is not particularly clear what group of people is represented by that and the lock is actually called device_hotplug_lock). Otherwise the approach is fine by me. BTW, the reason why device_hotplug_lock is acquired by the ACPI memory hotplug is because it generally needs to be synchronized with respect CPU hot-remove and similar. I believe that this may be the case in non-ACPI setups as well. Thanks, Rafael