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: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/11] mm/memory_hotplug: Make unregister_memory_block_under_nodes() never fail
- From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:05:02 +0200
- Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx>, 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: <d450488d-7a82-f7a9-c8d3-b69a0bca48c6@redhat.com>
- 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> <d450488d-7a82-f7a9-c8d3-b69a0bca48c6@redhat.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
On Mon 15-07-19 13:10:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 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?
Yes. In a follow up patch.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]