On 11/27/20 2:31 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>
>>> "arch_get_mappable_range(void)" (or similar) ?
>>
>> The current name seems bit better (I guess). Because we are asking for
>> max addressable range with or without the linear mapping.
>>
>>>
>>> AFAIKs, both implementations (arm64/s390x) simply do the exact same
>>> thing as memhp_get_pluggable_range() for !need_mapping.
>>
>> That is for now. Even the range without requiring linear mapping might not
>> be the same (like now) for every platform as some might have constraints.
>> So asking the platform ranges with or without linear mapping seems to be
>> better and could accommodate special cases going forward. Anyways, there
>> is an always an "all allowing" fallback option nonetheless.
>
> Let's keep it simple as long as we don't have a real scenario where this
> would apply.
Sure, will have the arch callback only when the range needs linear mapping.
Otherwise, memhp_get_pluggable_range() can just fallback on [0...max_phys]
for non linear mapping requests.
>
> [...]
>
>>
>>>
>>>> + return true;
>>>> +
>>>> + WARN(1, "Hotplug memory [%#llx-%#llx] exceeds maximum addressable range [%#llx-%#llx]\n",
>>>> + start, end, memhp_range.start, memhp_range.end);
>>>
>>> pr_warn() (or even pr_warn_once())
>>>
>>> while we're at it. No reason to eventually crash a system :)
>>
>> Didn't quite get it. How could this crash the system ?
>
> With panic_on_warn, which some distributions started to enable.
Okay, got it.
>
> [...]
>
>>>> /*
>>>> * Validate altmap is within bounds of the total request
>>>> @@ -1109,6 +1089,9 @@ int __ref __add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size, mhp_t mhp_flags)
>>>> struct resource *res;
>>>> int ret;
>>>>
>>>> + if (!memhp_range_allowed(start, size, 1))
>>>> + return -ERANGE;
>>>
>>> We used to return -E2BIG, no? Maybe better keep that.
>>
>> ERANGE seems to be better as the range can overrun on either side.
>
> Did you check all callers that they can handle it? Should mention that
> in the patch description then.
Hmm, okay then. Lets keep -E2BIG to be less disruptive for the callers.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> res = register_memory_resource(start, size, "System RAM");
>>>> if (IS_ERR(res))
>>>> return PTR_ERR(res);
>>>> @@ -1123,6 +1106,9 @@ int add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size, mhp_t mhp_flags)
>>>> {
>>>> int rc;
>>>>
>>>> + if (!memhp_range_allowed(start, size, 1))
>>>> + return -ERANGE;
>>>> +
>>>> lock_device_hotplug();
>>>> rc = __add_memory(nid, start, size, mhp_flags);
>>>> unlock_device_hotplug();
>>>> @@ -1163,6 +1149,9 @@ int add_memory_driver_managed(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
>>>> resource_name[strlen(resource_name) - 1] != ')')
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> + if (!memhp_range_allowed(start, size, 0))
>>>> + return -ERANGE;
>>>> +
>>>> lock_device_hotplug();
>>>
>>> For all 3 cases, doing a single check in register_memory_resource() is
>>> sufficient.
>>
>> Will replace with a single check in register_memory_resource(). But does
>> add_memory_driver_managed() always require linear mapping ? The proposed
>> check here did not ask for linear mapping in add_memory_driver_managed().
>
> Yes, in that regard, it behaves just like add_memory().
Sure.
