[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1365611810.32127.100.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:36:50 -0600
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxram@...ibm.com,
guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com, tmac@...com,
isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, wency@...fujitsu.com,
tangchen@...fujitsu.com, jiang.liu@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] resource: Add release_mem_region_adjustable()
On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 23:16 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> > Added release_mem_region_adjustable(), which releases a requested
> > region from a currently busy memory resource. This interface
> > adjusts the matched memory resource accordingly even if the
> > requested region does not match exactly but still fits into.
> >
> > This new interface is intended for memory hot-delete. During
> > bootup, memory resources are inserted from the boot descriptor
> > table, such as EFI Memory Table and e820. Each memory resource
> > entry usually covers the whole contigous memory range. Memory
> > hot-delete request, on the other hand, may target to a particular
> > range of memory resource, and its size can be much smaller than
> > the whole contiguous memory. Since the existing release interfaces
> > like __release_region() require a requested region to be exactly
> > matched to a resource entry, they do not allow a partial resource
> > to be released.
> >
> > There is no change to the existing interfaces since their restriction
> > is valid for I/O resources.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
> > Reviewed-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
>
> Should this emit a warning for attempting to free a non-existant region
> like __release_region() does?
Since __release_region() is a void function, it needs to emit a warning
within the func. I made release_mem_region_adjustable() as an int
function so that the caller can receive an error and decide what to do
based on its operation. I changed the caller __remove_pages() to emit a
warning message in PATCH 3/3 in this case.
> I think it would be better to base this off my patch and surround it with
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE as suggested by Andrew. There shouldn't be
> any conflicts.
Yes, I realized that CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE was a better choice, but I
had to use CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG at this time. So, thanks for doing the
cleanup!
Since it's already rc6, I will keep my patchset independent for now. I
will make minor change to update CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG to
CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE after your patch gets accepted -- either by
sending a separate patch (if my patchset is already accepted) or
updating my current patchset (if my patchset is not accepted yet).
Thanks!
-Toshi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists