[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YFxyntJb2yRUfU7b@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:23:10 +0100
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] mm,memory_hotplug: Allocate memmap from the added
memory range
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:08:43PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> As I said, having soemthing like
> memory_block_online()/memory_block_offline() could be one way to tackle it.
> We only support onlining/offlining of memory blocks and I ripped out all
> code that was abusing online_pages/offline_pages ...
>
> So have memory_block_online() call online_pages() and do the accounting of
> the vmemmap, with a big fat comment that sections are actually set
> online/offline in online_pages/offline_pages(). Could be a simple cleanup on
> top of this series ...
I overlooked this in your previous reply.
Yes, this looks like a middle-ground compromise and something I would
definitely pick over the other options.
If there is a consensus that that is the most straightforward way to go, I
could try to code that up to see how it looks so we all have an idea.
Thanks!
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists