On 01.07.19 12:27, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 01-07-19 11:36:44, Oscar Salvador wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 10:51:44AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> Yeah, we do not allow to offline multi zone (node) ranges so the current >>> code seems to be over engineered. >>> >>> Anyway, I am wondering why do we have to strictly check for already >>> removed nodes links. Is the sysfs code going to complain we we try to >>> remove again? >> >> No, sysfs will silently "fail" if the symlink has already been removed. >> At least that is what I saw last time I played with it. >> >> I guess the question is what if sysfs handling changes in the future >> and starts dropping warnings when trying to remove a symlink is not there. >> Maybe that is unlikely to happen? > > And maybe we handle it then rather than have a static allocation that > everybody with hotremove configured has to pay for. > So what's the suggestion? Dropping the nodemask_t completely and calling sysfs_remove_link() on already potentially removed links? Of course, we can also just use mem_blk->nid and rest assured that it will never be called for memory blocks belonging to multiple nodes. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
