From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch,
dan.j.williams@intel.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
jhubbard@nvidia.com, jglisse@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kernel/resource: Fix locking in request_free_mem_region
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:57:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9eef1283-28a3-845e-0e3e-80b763c9ec59@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210326012035.3853-1-apopple@nvidia.com>
On 26.03.21 02:20, Alistair Popple wrote:
> request_free_mem_region() is used to find an empty range of physical
> addresses for hotplugging ZONE_DEVICE memory. It does this by iterating
> over the range of possible addresses using region_intersects() to see if
> the range is free.
Just a high-level question: how does this iteract with memory
hot(un)plug? IOW, how defines and manages the "range of possible
addresses" ?
>
> region_intersects() obtains a read lock before walking the resource tree
> to protect against concurrent changes. However it drops the lock prior
> to returning. This means by the time request_mem_region() is called in
> request_free_mem_region() another thread may have already reserved the
> requested region resulting in unexpected failures and a message in the
> kernel log from hitting this condition:
I am confused. Why can't we return an error to the caller and let the
caller continue searching? This feels much simpler than what you propose
here. What am I missing?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-26 8:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-26 1:20 Alistair Popple
2021-03-26 5:15 ` Balbir Singh
2021-03-29 1:55 ` Alistair Popple
2021-03-29 5:39 ` Balbir Singh
2021-03-26 8:57 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2021-03-29 1:37 ` Alistair Popple
2021-03-29 9:27 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-03-30 9:13 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-03-31 6:19 ` Alistair Popple
2021-03-31 6:41 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-03-29 5:42 ` [kernel/resource] cf1e4e12c9: WARNING:possible_recursive_locking_detected kernel test robot
2021-03-29 7:53 ` Alistair Popple
2021-04-01 4:56 ` [PATCH v2] kernel/resource: Fix locking in request_free_mem_region Muchun Song
2021-04-01 5:03 ` Alistair Popple
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9eef1283-28a3-845e-0e3e-80b763c9ec59@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®