On Fri 19-07-19 11:20:43, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 19.07.19 11:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 19-07-19 11:05:51, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> On 19.07.19 10:42, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>> On Thu 18-07-19 16:22:39, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>>> We don't allow to offline memory block devices that belong to multiple > >>>> numa nodes. Therefore, such devices can never get removed. It is > >>>> sufficient to process a single node when removing the memory block. > >>>> > >>>> Remember for each memory block if it belongs to no, a single, or mixed > >>>> nodes, so we can use that information to skip unregistering or print a > >>>> warning (essentially a safety net to catch BUGs). > >>> > >>> I do not really like NUMA_NO_NODE - 1 thing. This is yet another invalid > >>> node that is magic. Why should we even care? In other words why is this > >>> patch an improvement? > >> > >> Oh, and to answer that part of the question: > >> > >> We no longer have to iterate over each pfn of a memory block to be removed. > > > > Is it possible that we are overzealous when unregistering syfs files and > > we should simply skip the pfn walk even without this change? > > > > I assume you mean something like v1 without the warning/"NUMA_NO_NODE -1"? > > See what I have right now below. Yes. I didn'g get to look closely but you caught the idea. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
