On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 09:45:37AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 08.08.2018 09:38, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 06:13:45PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >>> And since we know for sure that memhotplug-code cannot call it with ZONE_DEVICE,
> >>> I think this can be done easily.
> >>
> >> This might change down road but for now this is correct. They are
> >> talks to enumerate device memory through standard platform mechanisms
> >> and thus the kernel might see new types of resources down the road and
> >> maybe we will want to hotplug them directly from regular hotplug path
> >> as ZONE_DEVICE (lot of hypothetical at this point ;)).
> >
> > Well, I think that if that happens this whole thing will become
> > much easier, since we will not have several paths for doing the same thing.
> >
> > Another thing that I realized is that while we want to move all operation-pages
> > from remove_memory() path to offline_pages(), this can get tricky.
> >
> > Unless I am missing something, the devices from HMM and devm are not being registered
> > against "memory_subsys" struct, and so, they never get to call memory_subsys_offline()
> > and so offline_pages().
> >
> > Which means that we would have to call __remove_zone() from those paths.
> > But this alone will not work.
>
> I mean, they move it to the zone ("replacing online/offlining code"), so
> they should take of removing it again.
Yeah, I guess so.
I mean, of course we can make this work by placing __remove_zone in devm_memremap_pages_release
and hmm_devmem_release functions and make sure to call offline_mem_sections first.
But sounds a bit "hacky"..
Thanks
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
