At 09/01/2012 05:06 AM, Andrew Morton Wrote: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:00:15 +0800 > wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> When (hot)adding memory into system, /sys/firmware/memmap/X/{end, start, type} >> sysfs files are created. But there is no code to remove these files. The patch >> implements the function to remove them. >> >> Note : The code does not free firmware_map_entry since there is no way to free >> memory which is allocated by bootmem. >> >> .... >> >> +#define to_memmap_entry(obj) container_of(obj, struct firmware_map_entry, kobj) > > It would be better to implement this as an inlined C function. That > has improved type safety and improved readability. > >> +static void release_firmware_map_entry(struct kobject *kobj) >> +{ >> + struct firmware_map_entry *entry = to_memmap_entry(kobj); >> + struct page *page; >> + >> + page = virt_to_page(entry); >> + if (PageSlab(page) || PageCompound(page)) > > That PageCompound() test looks rather odd. Why is this done? Liu Jiang and Christoph Lameter discussed how to find slab page in this mail: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/6/333. > >> + kfree(entry); >> + >> + /* There is no way to free memory allocated from bootmem*/ >> +} > > This function is a bit ugly - poking around in page flags to determine > whether or not the memory came from bootmem. It would be cleaner to > use a separate boolean. Although I guess we can live with it as you > have it here. > >> static struct kobj_type memmap_ktype = { >> + .release = release_firmware_map_entry, >> .sysfs_ops = &memmap_attr_ops, >> .default_attrs = def_attrs, >> }; >> @@ -123,6 +139,16 @@ static int firmware_map_add_entry(u64 start, u64 end, >> return 0; >> } >> >> +/** >> + * firmware_map_remove_entry() - Does the real work to remove a firmware >> + * memmap entry. >> + * @entry: removed entry. >> + **/ >> +static inline void firmware_map_remove_entry(struct firmware_map_entry *entry) >> +{ >> + list_del(&entry->list); >> +} > > Is there no locking to protect that list? > >> /* >> * Add memmap entry on sysfs >> */ >> @@ -144,6 +170,31 @@ static int add_sysfs_fw_map_entry(struct firmware_map_entry *entry) >> return 0; >> } >> >> +/* >> + * Remove memmap entry on sysfs >> + */ >> +static inline void remove_sysfs_fw_map_entry(struct firmware_map_entry *entry) >> +{ >> + kobject_put(&entry->kobj); >> +} >> + >> +/* >> + * Search memmap entry >> + */ >> + >> +struct firmware_map_entry * __meminit >> +find_firmware_map_entry(u64 start, u64 end, const char *type) > > A better name would be firmware_map_find_entry(). To retain the (good) > convention that symbols exported from here all start with > "firmware_map_". OK. > >> +{ >> + struct firmware_map_entry *entry; >> + >> + list_for_each_entry(entry, &map_entries, list) >> + if ((entry->start == start) && (entry->end == end) && >> + (!strcmp(entry->type, type))) >> + return entry; >> + >> + return NULL; >> +} >> + >> /** >> * firmware_map_add_hotplug() - Adds a firmware mapping entry when we do >> * memory hotplug. >> @@ -196,6 +247,32 @@ int __init firmware_map_add_early(u64 start, u64 end, const char *type) >> return firmware_map_add_entry(start, end, type, entry); >> } >> >> +/** >> + * firmware_map_remove() - remove a firmware mapping entry >> + * @start: Start of the memory range. >> + * @end: End of the memory range. >> + * @type: Type of the memory range. >> + * >> + * removes a firmware mapping entry. >> + * >> + * Returns 0 on success, or -EINVAL if no entry. >> + **/ >> +int __meminit firmware_map_remove(u64 start, u64 end, const char *type) >> +{ >> + struct firmware_map_entry *entry; >> + >> + entry = find_firmware_map_entry(start, end - 1, type); >> + if (!entry) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + firmware_map_remove_entry(entry); >> + >> + /* remove the memmap entry */ >> + remove_sysfs_fw_map_entry(entry); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} > > Again, the lack of locking looks bad. > >> ... >> >> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c >> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c >> @@ -1052,9 +1052,9 @@ int offline_memory(u64 start, u64 size) >> return 0; >> } >> >> -int remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size) >> +int __ref remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size) > > Why was __ref added? Hmm, firmware_map_remove() was put in meminit section, and we call it in this function, so __ref is added here. Thanks Wen Congyang > >> { >> - int ret = -EBUSY; >> + int ret = 0; >> lock_memory_hotplug(); >> /* >> * The memory might become online by other task, even if you offine it. >> >> ... >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html