On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 01:10:33PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > 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. Hi David, While it is easy to construct a scenario where a memblock belongs to multiple nodes, I have to confess that I yet have not seen that in a real-world scenario. Given said that, I think that the less risky way is to just drop the nodemask_t and do not care about calling sysfs_remove_link() for already removed links. As I said, sysfs_remove_link() will silently fail when it fails to find the symlink, so I do not think it is a big deal. -- Oscar Salvador SUSE L3
