[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <efe2acfd-f22f-f856-cd2a-32374af2053a@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:28:44 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] mm/memory_hotplug: split memmap_on_memory requests
across memblocks
> +
> +static int __ref try_remove_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
> +{
> + int rc, nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> +
> + BUG_ON(check_hotplug_memory_range(start, size));
> +
> + /*
> + * All memory blocks must be offlined before removing memory. Check
> + * whether all memory blocks in question are offline and return error
> + * if this is not the case.
> + *
> + * While at it, determine the nid. Note that if we'd have mixed nodes,
> + * we'd only try to offline the last determined one -- which is good
> + * enough for the cases we care about.
> + */
> + rc = walk_memory_blocks(start, size, &nid, check_memblock_offlined_cb);
> + if (rc)
> + return rc;
> +
> + /*
> + * For memmap_on_memory, the altmaps could have been added on
> + * a per-memblock basis. Loop through the entire range if so,
> + * and remove each memblock and its altmap.
> + */
> + if (mhp_memmap_on_memory()) {
> + unsigned long memblock_size = memory_block_size_bytes();
> + u64 cur_start;
> +
> + for (cur_start = start; cur_start < start + size;
> + cur_start += memblock_size)
> + __try_remove_memory(nid, cur_start, memblock_size);
> + } else {
> + __try_remove_memory(nid, start, size);
> + }
> +
> return 0;
> }
Why is the firmware, memblock and nid handling not kept in this outer
function?
We really shouldn't be doing per memory block what needs to be done per
memblock: remove_memory_block_devices() and arch_remove_memory().
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists