On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 23:43 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for your report. > > On Thursday, August 01, 2013 05:37:21 PM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote: > > By following commit, I cannot hot remove a memory device. > > > > ACPI / memhotplug: Bind removable memory blocks to ACPI device nodes > > commit e2ff39400d81233374e780b133496a2296643d7d > > > > Details are follows: > > When I add a memory device, acpi_memory_enable_device() always fails > > as follows: > > > > ... > > [ 1271.114116] [ffffea121c400000-ffffea121c7fffff] PMD -> [ffff880813c00000-ffff880813ffffff] on node 3 > > [ 1271.128682] [ffffea121c800000-ffffea121cbfffff] PMD -> [ffff880813800000-ffff880813bfffff] on node 3 > > [ 1271.143298] [ffffea121cc00000-ffffea121cffffff] PMD -> [ffff880813000000-ffff8808133fffff] on node 3 > > [ 1271.157799] [ffffea121d000000-ffffea121d3fffff] PMD -> [ffff880812c00000-ffff880812ffffff] on node 3 > > [ 1271.172341] [ffffea121d400000-ffffea121d7fffff] PMD -> [ffff880812800000-ffff880812bfffff] on node 3 > > [ 1271.186872] [ffffea121d800000-ffffea121dbfffff] PMD -> [ffff880812400000-ffff8808127fffff] on node 3 > > [ 1271.201481] [ffffea121dc00000-ffffea121dffffff] PMD -> [ffff880812000000-ffff8808123fffff] on node 3 > > [ 1271.216041] [ffffea121e000000-ffffea121e3fffff] PMD -> [ffff880811c00000-ffff880811ffffff] on node 3 > > [ 1271.230623] [ffffea121e400000-ffffea121e7fffff] PMD -> [ffff880811800000-ffff880811bfffff] on node 3 > > [ 1271.245148] [ffffea121e800000-ffffea121ebfffff] PMD -> [ffff880811400000-ffff8808117fffff] on node 3 > > [ 1271.259683] [ffffea121ec00000-ffffea121effffff] PMD -> [ffff880811000000-ffff8808113fffff] on node 3 > > [ 1271.274194] [ffffea121f000000-ffffea121f3fffff] PMD -> [ffff880810c00000-ffff880810ffffff] on node 3 > > [ 1271.288764] [ffffea121f400000-ffffea121f7fffff] PMD -> [ffff880810800000-ffff880810bfffff] on node 3 It appears that each memory object only has 64MB of memory. This is less than the memory block size, which is 128MB. This means that a single memory block associates with two ACPI memory device objects. > > ... > > [ 1271.325841] acpi PNP0C80:03: acpi_memory_enable_device() error > > Well, the only new way acpi_memory_enable_device() can fail after that commit > is a failure in acpi_bind_memory_blocks(). Agreed. > This means that either handle is NULL, which I think we can exclude, because > acpi_memory_enable_device() wouldn't be called at all if that were the case, or > there's a more subtle error in acpi_bind_one(). > > One that comes to mind is that we may be calling acpi_bind_one() twice for the > same memory region, in which it will trigger -EINVAL from the sanity check in > there. I think it fails with -EINVAL at the place with dev_warn(dev, "ACPI handle is already set\n"). When two ACPI memory objects associate with a same memory block, the bind procedure of the 2nd ACPI memory object sees that ACPI_HANDLE(dev) is already set to the 1st ACPI memory object. Thanks, -Toshi -- 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
