Re: [PATCH v3 10/11] mm/memory_hotplug: Make unregister_memory_block_under_nodes() never fail
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/11] mm/memory_hotplug: Make unregister_memory_block_under_nodes() never fail
- From: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:10:33 +0200
- Cc: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>, Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx>, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20190701102756.GO6376@dhcp22.suse.cz>
- Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
- Organization: Red Hat GmbH
- References: <20190527111152.16324-1-david@redhat.com> <20190527111152.16324-11-david@redhat.com> <20190701085144.GJ6376@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190701093640.GA17349@linux> <20190701102756.GO6376@dhcp22.suse.cz>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
On 01.07.19 12:27, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 01-07-19 11:36:44, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 10:51:44AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> Yeah, we do not allow to offline multi zone (node) ranges so the current
>>> code seems to be over engineered.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I am wondering why do we have to strictly check for already
>>> removed nodes links. Is the sysfs code going to complain we we try to
>>> remove again?
>>
>> No, sysfs will silently "fail" if the symlink has already been removed.
>> At least that is what I saw last time I played with it.
>>
>> I guess the question is what if sysfs handling changes in the future
>> and starts dropping warnings when trying to remove a symlink is not there.
>> Maybe that is unlikely to happen?
>
> And maybe we handle it then rather than have a static allocation that
> everybody with hotremove configured has to pay for.
>
So what's the suggestion? Dropping the nodemask_t completely and calling
sysfs_remove_link() on already potentially removed links?
Of course, we can also just use mem_blk->nid and rest assured that it
will never be called for memory blocks belonging to multiple nodes.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]