[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <31cfdf35-618f-6f56-ef16-0d999682ad02@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 09:51:39 +0200
From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, rafael@...nel.org,
nathanl@...ux.ibm.com, cheloha@...ux.ibm.com,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't rely on system state to detect hot-plug
operations
Le 10/09/2020 à 09:23, Michal Hocko a écrit :
> On Wed 09-09-20 18:07:15, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> Le 09/09/2020 à 12:59, Michal Hocko a écrit :
>>> On Wed 09-09-20 11:21:58, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> [...]
>>>> For the point a, using the enum allows to know in
>>>> register_mem_sect_under_node() if the link operation is due to a hotplug
>>>> operation or done at boot time.
>>>
>>> Yes, but let me repeat. We have a mess here and different paths check
>>> for the very same condition by different ways. We need to unify those.
>>
>> What are you suggesting to unify these checks (using a MP_* enum as
>> suggested by David, something else)?
>
> We do have system_state check spread at different places. I would use
> this one and wrap it behind a helper. Or have I missed any reason why
> that wouldn't work for this case?
That would not work in that case because memory can be hot-added at the
SYSTEM_SCHEDULING system state and the regular memory is also registered at that
system state too. So system state is not enough to discriminate between the both.
I think I'll go with the option suggested by David, replacing the enum
memmap_context a new enum memplug_context and pass that context to
register_mem_sect_under_node() so that function will known when node id should
be checked or not.
Cheers,
Laurent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists