[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87jzty9l6w.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:45:11 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>
Cc: "david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"osalvador@...e.de" <osalvador@...e.de>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com" <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
"nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev" <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
"aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
"jmoyer@...hat.com" <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
"linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/memory_hotplug: split memmap_on_memory
requests across memblocks
"Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2023-07-24 at 13:54 +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com> writes:
>>
>> >
>> > @@ -2035,12 +2056,38 @@ void try_offline_node(int nid)
>> > }
>> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(try_offline_node);
>> >
>> > -static int __ref try_remove_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
>> > +static void __ref __try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
>> > + struct vmem_altmap *altmap)
>> > {
>> > - struct vmem_altmap mhp_altmap = {};
>> > - struct vmem_altmap *altmap = NULL;
>> > - unsigned long nr_vmemmap_pages;
>> > - int rc = 0, nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>> > + /* remove memmap entry */
>> > + firmware_map_remove(start, start + size, "System RAM");
>>
>> If mhp_supports_memmap_on_memory(), we will call
>> firmware_map_add_hotplug() for whole range. But here we may call
>> firmware_map_remove() for part of range. Is it OK?
>>
>
> Good point, this is a discrepancy in the add vs remove path. Can the
> firmware memmap entries be moved up a bit in the add path, and is it
> okay to create these for each memblock? Or should these be for the
> whole range? I'm not familiar with the implications. (I've left it as
> is for v3 for now, but depending on the direction I can update in a
> future rev).
Cced more firmware map developers and maintainers.
Per my understanding, we should create one firmware memmap entry for
each memblock.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists