From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549B1C282DD for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:31:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F1E21773 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:31:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1555507895; bh=myoczHuYfHHXEBLagJSHqVXd38Vp4lsfExcyMTcSyrw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=I7pIRxQwF8bEOHh+U0bocrpHns7c0LZpeu6FvsLWXdc3ELEb6iehP9ueoRBR0QfeS 7fkQ39ks5vSGoNrV7QDtupZhMdpMDea/fmmClnOKO8aXYkT4A3+0e8FiX3mg0sGJam XEvQ8vEzVlitEj/EmIetOrbEky73MATtF/5ELH9s= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732286AbfDQNbd (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:31:33 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33408 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729939AbfDQNbd (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:31:33 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E052EB136; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:31:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 15:31:31 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: David Hildenbrand Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Oscar Salvador , Pavel Tatashin , Wei Yang , Qian Cai , Arun KS , Mathieu Malaterre Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] mm/memory_hotplug: Release memory resource after arch_remove_memory() Message-ID: <20190417133131.GK5878@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190409100148.24703-1-david@redhat.com> <20190409100148.24703-2-david@redhat.com> <20190417131258.GI5878@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 17-04-19 15:24:47, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 17.04.19 15:12, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 09-04-19 12:01:45, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> __add_pages() doesn't add the memory resource, so __remove_pages() > >> shouldn't remove it. Let's factor it out. Especially as it is a special > >> case for memory used as system memory, added via add_memory() and > >> friends. > >> > >> We now remove the resource after removing the sections instead of doing > >> it the other way around. I don't think this change is problematic. > >> > >> add_memory() > >> register memory resource > >> arch_add_memory() > >> > >> remove_memory > >> arch_remove_memory() > >> release memory resource > >> > >> While at it, explain why we ignore errors and that it only happeny if > >> we remove memory in a different granularity as we added it. > > > > OK, I agree that the symmetry is good in general and it certainly makes > > sense here as well. But does it make sense to pick up this particular > > part without larger considerations of add vs. remove apis? I have a > > strong feeling this wouldn't be the only thing to care about. In other > > words does this help future changes or it is more likely to cause more > > code conflicts with other features being developed right now? > > I am planning to > > 1. factor out memory block device handling, so features like sub-section > add/remove are easier to add internally. Move it to the user that wants > it. Clean up all the mess we have right now due to supporting memory > block devices that span several sections. > > 2. Make sure that any arch_add_pages() and friends clean up properly if > they fail instead of indicating failure but leaving some partially added > memory lying around. > > 3. Clean up node handling regarding to memory hotplug/unplug. Especially > don't allow to offline/remove memory spanning several nodes etc. Yes, this all sounds sane to me. > IOW, in order to properly clean up memory block device handling and > prepare for more changes people are interested in (e.g. sub-section add > of device memory), this is the right thing to do. The other parts are > bigger changes. This would be really valuable to have in the cover. Beause there is so much to clean up in this mess but making random small cleanups without a larger plan tends to step on others toes more than being useful. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs