Hi David,
On 21/08/18 20:44, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 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.
Do you mean "onlining of memory from user space first took a),
followed by b)"?
> In [1], and it was decided to not make use of device_hotplug_lock, but
> rather to enforce a locking order.
>
> 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.
>
> 2. device_online() should be called under device_hotplug_lock, however
> onlining memory during add_memory() does not take care of that.
>
> In addition, I think there is also something wrong about the locking in
>
> 3. arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/memtrace.c calls offline_pages()
> without locks. This was introduced after 30467e0b3be. And skimming over
> the code, I assume it could need some more care in regards to locking
> (e.g. device_online() called without device_hotplug_lock - but I'll
> not touch that for now).
Can you mention that you fixed this in later patches?
The series looks good to me. Feel free to add my reviewed-by:
Reviewed-by: Rashmica Gupta <rashmic...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
