[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eca45ac5fc08572038bb5d842de6bf7d6dc3821b.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 19:09:03 +0000
From: "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>
To: "nifan.cxl@...il.com" <nifan.cxl@...il.com>
CC: "david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
"Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com" <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.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>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev" <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
"aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Hocko, Michal" <mhocko@...e.com>,
"jmoyer@...hat.com" <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
"linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] mm/memory_hotplug: split memmap_on_memory requests
across memblocks
On Fri, 2023-11-03 at 09:43 -0700, fan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 04:51:52PM -0600, Vishal Verma wrote:
> >
[..]
> >
> > +static void __ref remove_memory_blocks_and_altmaps(u64 start, u64 size)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long memblock_size = memory_block_size_bytes();
> > + u64 cur_start;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * For memmap_on_memory, the altmaps were added on a per-memblock
> > + * basis; we have to process each individual memory block.
> > + */
> > + for (cur_start = start; cur_start < start + size;
> > + cur_start += memblock_size) {
> > + struct vmem_altmap *altmap = NULL;
> > + struct memory_block *mem;
> > +
> > + mem = find_memory_block(pfn_to_section_nr(PFN_DOWN(cur_start)));
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!mem);
> > + if (!mem)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + altmap = mem->altmap;
> > + mem->altmap = NULL;
> > +
> > + remove_memory_block_devices(cur_start, memblock_size);
>
> Is cur_start always aligned to memory_block_size_bytes? If not, the
> above function will return directly, is that a issue?
>
Hi Fan,
Thanks for taking a look and the review (btw v9 is the latest revision
of these).
I think we're okay because the create side would've adding this memory
in the first place as it too does an alignment check for
memory_block_size_bytes.
Thanks
Vishal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists