On 1/12/21 3:39 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 12.01.21 04:51, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/11/21 7:13 PM, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:51:47AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> AFAIKs, all memhp_get_pluggable_range() users pass "1".
>>>>
>>>> What about the "add_pages()-only" path?
>>>
>>> I guess you refer to memremap_pages(), right?
>>
>> Right, via pagemap_range().
>>
>>> If so, moving the added memhp_range_allowed() check above the if-else might do
>>> the trick
>>>
>> We had that code in the earlier version. But dropped it, as we did
>> not want to add any new checks in the generic code. Can add it back
>> if that is preferred.
>
> I remember discussing replacing the check in __add_pages() instead. But
The proposed change for __add_pages() now seems misleading. Instead of
VM_BUG_ON(), memhp_range_allowed() should be checked directly for a non
linear mapping i.e with 'false' argument and return prematurely in case
that check fails.
s/VM_BUG_ON(!memhp_range_allowed(.., 1)/!memhp_range_allowed(.., 0)/
/*
* Reasonably generic function for adding memory. It is
* expected that archs that support memory hotplug will
@@ -317,10 +304,7 @@ int __ref __add_pages(int nid, unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages,
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!params->pgprot.pgprot))
return -EINVAL;
- err = check_hotplug_memory_addressable(pfn, nr_pages);
- if (err)
- return err;
-
+ VM_BUG_ON(!memhp_range_allowed(PFN_PHYS(pfn), nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE, 1));
if (altmap) {
/*
* Validate altmap is within bounds of the total request
@@ -1181,6 +1165,61 @@ int add_memory_driver_managed(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
> I don't really care where the check ends up being. As discussed, at some
> point, we should provide versions of add_pages() and arch_add_pages()
> that don't immediately end in arch-code.
Sure. But for now, AFAICS the above replacement should be sufficient.
