On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:45:34 PM Tang Chen wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 05/21/2013 07:15 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> ......
> >>> + mem->state = to_state;
> >>> + if (to_state == MEM_ONLINE)
> >>> + mem->last_online = online_type;
> >>
> >> Why do we need to remember last online type ?
> >>
> >> And as far as I know, we can obtain which zone a page was in last time it
> >> was onlined by check page->flags, just like online_pages() does. If we
> >> use online_kernel or online_movable, the zone boundary will be
> >> recalculated.
> >> So we don't need to remember the last online type.
> >>
> >> Seeing from your patch, I guess memory_subsys_online() can only handle
> >> online and offline. So mem->last_online is used to remember what user has
> >> done through the original way to trigger memory hot-remove, right ? And
> >> when
> >> user does it in this new way, it just does the same thing as user does last
> >> time.
> >>
> >> But I still think we don't need to remember it because if finally you call
> >> online_pages(), it just does the same thing as last time by default.
> >>
> >> online_pages()
> >> {
> >> ......
> >> if (online_type == ONLINE_KERNEL ......
> >>
> >> if (online_type == ONLINE_MOVABLE......
> >>
> >> zone = page_zone(pfn_to_page(pfn));
> >>
> >> /* Here, the page will be put into the zone which it belong to last
> >> time. */
> >
> > To be honest, it wasn't entirely clear to me that online_pages() would do the
> > same thing as last time by default. Suppose, for example, that the previous
> > online_type was ONLINE_MOVABLE. How online_pages() is supposed to know that
> > it should do the move_pfn_zone_right() if we don't tell it to do that? Or
> > is that unnecessary, because it's already been done previously?
>
> Yes, it is unnecessary. move_pfn_zone_right/left() will modify the zone
> related
> bits in page->flags. But when the page is offline, the zone related bits in
> page->flags will not change. So when it is online again, by dafault, it
> will
> be in the zone which it was in last time.
>
> ......
>
> >>
> >> I just thought of it. Maybe I missed something in your design. Please tell
> >> me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > Well, so what should be passed to __memory_block_change_state() in
> > memory_subsys_online()? -1?
>
> If you want to keep the last time status, you can pass ONLINE_KEEP.
> Or -1 is all right.
>
> Thanks. :)
OK, thanks for the info.
Since the $subject patch is on my acpi-hotplug branch which has gone public
already (and cannot be rebased), I'll prepare a patch with the change you're
recommending on top of it.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
