[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b294506a-9007-be11-f477-5b2a0011b2ba@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 22:17:35 +0000
From: Pasha Tatashin <Pavel.Tatashin@...rosoft.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...hadventures.net>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@...el.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Jia He <jia.he@...-semitech.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] mm/memory_hotplug: check if sections are already
online/offline
On 8/16/18 7:00 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 16.08.2018 12:47, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:06:26PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>>> +
>>> +/* check if all mem sections are offline */
>>> +bool mem_sections_offline(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
>>> +{
>>> + for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
>>> + unsigned long section_nr = pfn_to_section_nr(pfn);
>>> +
>>> + if (WARN_ON(!valid_section_nr(section_nr)))
>>> + continue;
>>> + if (online_section_nr(section_nr))
>>> + return false;
>>> + }
>>> + return true;
>>> +}
>>
>> AFAICS pages_correctly_probed will catch this first.
>> pages_correctly_probed checks for the section to be:
>>
>> - present
>> - valid
>> - !online
>
> Right, I missed that function.
>
>>
>> Maybe it makes sense to rename it, and write another pages_correctly_probed routine
>> for the offline case.
>>
>> So all checks would stay in memory_block_action level, and we would not need
>> the mem_sections_offline/online stuff.
I am OK with that, but will wait for a patch to review.
Pavel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists