On 8/8/23 12:05 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 07.08.23 14:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 07.08.23 14:27, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Sat 05-08-23 19:54:23, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote: >>> [...] >>>> Do you see a need for firmware-managed memory to be hotplugged in with >>>> different memory block sizes? >>> >>> In short. Yes. Slightly longer, a fixed size memory block semantic is >>> just standing in the way and I would even argue it is actively harmful. >>> Just have a look at ridicously small memory blocks on ppc. I do >>> understand that it makes some sense to be aligned to the memory model >>> (so sparsmem section aligned). In an ideal world, memory hotplug v2 >>> interface (if we ever go that path) should be physical memory range based. >> >> Yes, we discussed that a couple of times already (and so far nobody >> cared to implement any of that). >> >> Small memory block sizes are very beneficial for use cases like PPC >> dlar, virtio-mem, hyperv-balloon, ... essentially in most virtual >> environments where you might want to add/remove memory in very small >> granularity. I don't see that changing any time soon. Rather the opposite. >> >> Small memory block sizes are suboptimal for large machines where you >> might never end up removing such memory (boot memory), or when dealing >> with devices that can only be removed in one piece (DIMM/kmem). We >> already have memory groups in place to model that. >> >> For the latter it might be beneficial to have memory blocks of larger >> size that correspond to the physical memory ranges. That might also make >> a memmap (re-)configuration easier. >> >> Not sure if that is standing in any way or is harmful, though. >> > > Just because I thought of something right now, I'll share it, maybe it makes sense. > > Assume when we get add_memory*(MHP_MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY) and it is enabled by the admin: > > 1) We create a single altmap at the beginning of the memory > > 2) We create the existing fixed-size memory block devices, but flag them > to be part of a single "altmap" unit. > > 3) Whenever we trigger offlining of a single such memory block, we > offline *all* memory blocks belonging to that altmap, essentially > using a single offline_pages() call and updating all memory block > states accordingly. > > 4) Whenever we trigger onlining of a single such memory block, we > online *all* memory blocks belonging to that altmap, using a single > online_pages() call. > > 5) We fail remove_memory() if it doesn't cover the same (altmap) range. > > So we can avoid having a memory block v2 (and all that comes with that ...) for now and still get that altmap stuff sorted out. As that altmap behavior can be controlled by the admin, we should be fine for now. > > I think all memory notifiers should already be able to handle bigger granularity, but it would be easy to check. Some internal things might require a bit of tweaking. > > Just a thought. > W.r.t enabling memmap_on_memory for ppc64, I guess I will drop patch 7 and resend the series so that Andrew can pick rest of the patches? -aneesh
