On Mon, 3 Jul 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 30-06-17 12:15:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > [...] > > Sure. Just to make you to mull over more stuff, find below the patch which > > moves all of this to use the cpuhotplug lock. > > > > Thanks, > > > > tglx > > > > 8<-------------------- > > Subject: mm/memory-hotplug: Use cpu hotplug lock > > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:30:00 +0200 > > > > Most place which take the memory hotplug lock take the cpu hotplug lock as > > well. Avoid the double locking and use the cpu hotplug lock for both. > > Hmm, I am usually not a fan of locks conflating because it is then less > clear what the lock actually protects. Memory and cpu hotplugs should > be largely independent so I am not sure this patch simplify things a > lot. It is nice to see few lines go away but I am little bit worried > that we will enventually develop a separate locking again in future for > some weird memory hotplug usecases. Fair enough. > > > Not-Yet-Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > [...] > > --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c > > +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c > [...] > > @@ -2138,7 +2114,7 @@ void __ref remove_memory(int nid, u64 st > > > > try_offline_node(nid); > > > > - mem_hotplug_done(); > > + cpus_write_lock(); > > unlock you meant here, right? Doh, -ENOQUILTREFRESH -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
