linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hca@linux.ibm.com,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Pre-validate the address range with platform
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:33:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d57036a1-de12-2d32-be65-daaa3dc5b772@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1610975582-12646-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>

On 18.01.21 14:12, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This series adds a mechanism allowing platforms to weigh in and prevalidate
> incoming address range before proceeding further with the memory hotplug.
> This helps prevent potential platform errors for the given address range,
> down the hotplug call chain, which inevitably fails the hotplug itself.
> 
> This mechanism was suggested by David Hildenbrand during another discussion
> with respect to a memory hotplug fix on arm64 platform.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1600332402-30123-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com/
> 
> This mechanism focuses on the addressibility aspect and not [sub] section
> alignment aspect. Hence check_hotplug_memory_range() and check_pfn_span()
> have been left unchanged. Wondering if all these can still be unified in
> an expanded memhp_range_allowed() check, that can be called from multiple
> memory hot add and remove paths.
> 
> This series applies on v5.11-rc4 and has been tested on arm64. But only
> build tested on s390.
> 
> Changes in V3
> 
> - Updated the commit message in [PATCH 1/3]
> - Replaced 1 with 'true' and 0 with 'false' in memhp_range_allowed()
> - Updated memhp_range.end as VMEM_MAX_PHYS - 1 and updated vmem_add_mapping() on s390
> - Changed memhp_range_allowed() behaviour in __add_pages()
> - Updated __add_pages() to return E2BIG when memhp_range_allowed() fails for non-linear mapping based requests

Minor thing, we should make up our mind if we want to call stuff
internally "memhp_" or "mhp". I prefer the latter, because it is shorter.


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb



  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-01-19 13:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-18 13:12 [PATCH V3 0/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Pre-validate the address range with platform Anshuman Khandual
2021-01-18 13:12 ` [PATCH V3 1/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Prevalidate the address range being added " Anshuman Khandual
2021-01-19 12:21   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-20  8:33     ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-01-20 10:41       ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-20 11:58         ` Oscar Salvador
2021-01-21  9:23       ` Oscar Salvador
2021-01-22  9:18   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-22 10:41     ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-01-22 10:42       ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-22 10:43         ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-18 13:13 ` [PATCH V3 2/3] arm64/mm: Define arch_get_mappable_range() Anshuman Khandual
2021-01-19 12:24   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-18 13:13 ` [PATCH V3 3/3] s390/mm: " Anshuman Khandual
2021-01-19 12:26   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-20  8:28     ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-01-20 10:39       ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-18 13:13 ` [PATCH RFC] virtio-mem: check against memhp_get_pluggable_range() which memory we can hotplug Anshuman Khandual
2021-01-18 13:21   ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-01-19 12:27     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-21  9:57     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-22  3:32       ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-01-19 13:33 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2021-01-19 13:40   ` [PATCH V3 0/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Pre-validate the address range with platform Oscar Salvador
2021-01-20  8:37     ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-01-22  6:04       ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-01-22  8:34         ` David Hildenbrand

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=d57036a1-de12-2d32-be65-daaa3dc5b772@redhat.com \
    --to=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=osalvador@suse.de \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).