On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:03:31AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 25.06.19 10:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 25.06.19 09:52, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> >> remove_memory_block_devices() checks for the range to be aligned
> >> to memory_block_size_bytes, which is our current memory block size,
> >> and WARNs_ON and bails out if it is not.
> >>
> >> This is the right to do, but we do already do that in try_remove_memory(),
> >> where remove_memory_block_devices() gets called from, and we even are
> >> more strict in try_remove_memory, since we directly BUG_ON in case the range
> >> is not properly aligned.
> >>
> >> Since remove_memory_block_devices() is only called from try_remove_memory(),
> >> we can safely drop the check here.
> >>
> >> To be honest, I am not sure if we should kill the system in case we cannot
> >> remove memory.
> >> I tend to think that WARN_ON and return and error is better.
> >
> > I failed to parse this sentence.
> >
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/base/memory.c | 4 ----
> >> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
> >> index 826dd76f662e..07ba731beb42 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
> >> @@ -771,10 +771,6 @@ void remove_memory_block_devices(unsigned long start, unsigned long size)
> >> struct memory_block *mem;
> >> int block_id;
> >>
> >> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!IS_ALIGNED(start, memory_block_size_bytes()) ||
> >> - !IS_ALIGNED(size, memory_block_size_bytes())))
> >> - return;
> >> -
> >> mutex_lock(&mem_sysfs_mutex);
> >> for (block_id = start_block_id; block_id != end_block_id; block_id++) {
> >> mem = find_memory_block_by_id(block_id, NULL);
> >>
> >
> > As I said when I introduced this, I prefer to have such duplicate checks
> > in place in case we have dependent code splattered over different files.
> > (especially mm/ vs. drivers/base). Such simple checks avoid to document
> > "start and size have to be aligned to memory blocks".
>
> Lol, I even documented it as well. So yeah, if you're going to drop this
> once, also drop the one in create_memory_block_devices().
TBH, I would not mind sticking with it.
What sticked out the most was that in the previous check, we BUG_on while
here we just print out a warning, so it seemed quite "inconsistent" to me.
And I only stumbled upon this when I was testing a kernel module that
hot-removed memory in a different granularity.
Anyway, I do not really feel strong here, I can perfectly drop this patch as I
would rather have the focus in the following-up patches, which are the important
ones IMO.
>
> >
> > If you still insist, then also remove the same sequence from
> > create_memory_block_devices().
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
