[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c60ecbed-9073-83f9-e9e2-1f79a80cfe44@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:25:51 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
catalin.marinas@....com
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/4] mm/memory_hotplug: Pre-validate the address range
with platform
On 25.01.21 03:58, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This series adds a mechanism allowing platforms to weigh in and prevalidate
> incoming address range before proceeding further with the memory hotplug.
> This helps prevent potential platform errors for the given address range,
> down the hotplug call chain, which inevitably fails the hotplug itself.
>
> This mechanism was suggested by David Hildenbrand during another discussion
> with respect to a memory hotplug fix on arm64 platform.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1600332402-30123-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com/
>
> This mechanism focuses on the addressibility aspect and not [sub] section
> alignment aspect. Hence check_hotplug_memory_range() and check_pfn_span()
> have been left unchanged. Wondering if all these can still be unified in
> an expanded memhp_range_allowed() check, that can be called from multiple
> memory hot add and remove paths.
>
> This series applies on v5.11-rc5 and has been tested on arm64. But only
> build tested on s390.
>
Note that this fails to apply right now to both, -next and Linus' tree.
Do you have a branch with he patches on top I can use for a quick test?
Thanks
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists