All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
	Jianyong Wu <Jianyong.Wu@arm.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vineet Gupta <vgupta@kernel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
	Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] memblock: add MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED to mimic IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 10:04:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0d6c86ba-076b-5d4b-33a8-da267f951a85@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YVYqdN7MFdzBlCVm@kernel.org>

On 30.09.21 23:21, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 06:54:01PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 29.09.21 18:39, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 05:05:17PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> Let's add a flag that corresponds to IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED.
>>>> Similar to MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG, most infrastructure has to treat such memory
>>>> like ordinary MEMBLOCK_NONE memory -- for example, when selecting memory
>>>> regions to add to the vmcore for dumping in the crashkernel via
>>>> for_each_mem_range().
>>> Can you please elaborate on the difference in semantics of MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG
>>> and MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED?
>>> Unless I'm missing something they both mark memory that can be unplugged
>>> anytime and so it should not be used in certain cases. Why is there a need
>>> for a new flag?
>>
>> In the cover letter I have "Alternative B: Reuse MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG.
>> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG serves a different purpose, though.", but looking into the
>> details it won't work as is.
>>
>> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG is used to mark memory early during boot that can later get
>> hotunplugged again and should be placed into ZONE_MOVABLE if the
>> "movable_node" kernel parameter is set.
>>
>> The confusing part is that we talk about "hotpluggable" but really mean
>> "hotunpluggable": the reason is that HW flags DIMM slots that can later be
>> hotplugged as "hotpluggable" even though there is already something
>> hotplugged.
> 
> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG name is indeed somewhat confusing, but still it's core
> meaning "this memory may be removed" which does not differ from what
> IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED means.
> 
> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG regions are indeed placed into ZONE_MOVABLE, but more
> importantly, they are avoided when we allocate memory from memblock.
> 
> So, in my view, both flags mean that the memory may be removed and it
> should not be used for certain types of allocations.

The semantics are different:

MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG: memory is indicated as "System RAM" in the 
firmware-provided memory map and added to the system early during boot; 
we want this memory to be managed by ZONE_MOVABLE with "movable_node" 
set on the kernel command line, because only then we want it to be 
hotpluggable again. kexec *has to* indicate this memory to the second 
kernel and can place kexec-images on this memory. After memory 
hotunplug, kexec has to be re-armed.

MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED: memory is not indicated as System RAM" in the 
firmware-provided memory map; this memory is always detected and added 
to the system by a driver; memory might not actually be physically 
hotunpluggable and the ZONE selection does not depend on "movable_core". 
kexec *must not* indicate this memory to the second kernel and *must 
not* place kexec-images on this memory.


I would really advise against mixing concepts here.


What we could do is indicate *all* hotplugged memory (not just 
IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED memory) as MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG and make 
MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG less dependent on "movable_node".

MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG for early boot memory: with "movable_core", place it in 
ZONE_MOVABLE. Even without "movable_core", don't place early kernel 
allocations on this memory.
MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG for all memory: don't place kexec images or on this 
memory, independent of "movable_core".


memblock would then not contain the information "contained in 
firmware-provided memory map" vs. "not contained in firmware-provided 
memory map"; but I think right now it's not strictly required to have 
that information if we'd go down that path.

>   
>> For example, ranges in the ACPI SRAT that are marked as
>> ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE will be marked MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG early during
>> boot (drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c:acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init()). Later, we
>> use that information to size ZONE_MOVABLE
>> (mm/page_alloc.c:find_zone_movable_pfns_for_nodes()). This will make sure
>> that these "hotpluggable" DIMMs can later get hotunplugged.
>>
>> Also, see should_skip_region() how this relates to the "movable_node" kernel
>> parameter:
>>
>> 	/* skip hotpluggable memory regions if needed */
>> 	if (movable_node_is_enabled() && memblock_is_hotpluggable(m) &&
>> 	    (flags & MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG))
>> 		return true;
> 
> Hmm, I think that the movable_node_is_enabled() check here is excessive,
> but I suspect we cannot simply remove it without breaking anything.

The reasoning is: without "movable_core" we don't want this memory to be 
hotunpluggable; consequently, we don't care if we place kexec-images on 
this memory. MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG is currently only active with "movable_core".

If we remove that check, we will always not place early kernel 
allocations on that memory, even if we don't care about ZONE_MOVABLE.

> 
> I'll take a deeper look on the potential consequences.
> 
> BTW, is there anything that prevents putting kexec to hot-unplugable memory
> that was cold-plugged on boot?

I think it depends on how the platform handles hotunpluggable DIMMs or 
hotunpluggable NUMA nodes. If the platform ends up indicates such memory 
via MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG, and "movable_core" is set, memory would be put 
into ZONE_MOVABLE and kexec would not place kexec-images on that memory.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
	Jianyong Wu <Jianyong.Wu@arm.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vineet Gupta <vgupta@kernel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
	Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] memblock: add MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED to mimic IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 10:04:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0d6c86ba-076b-5d4b-33a8-da267f951a85@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YVYqdN7MFdzBlCVm@kernel.org>

On 30.09.21 23:21, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 06:54:01PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 29.09.21 18:39, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 05:05:17PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> Let's add a flag that corresponds to IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED.
>>>> Similar to MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG, most infrastructure has to treat such memory
>>>> like ordinary MEMBLOCK_NONE memory -- for example, when selecting memory
>>>> regions to add to the vmcore for dumping in the crashkernel via
>>>> for_each_mem_range().
>>> Can you please elaborate on the difference in semantics of MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG
>>> and MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED?
>>> Unless I'm missing something they both mark memory that can be unplugged
>>> anytime and so it should not be used in certain cases. Why is there a need
>>> for a new flag?
>>
>> In the cover letter I have "Alternative B: Reuse MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG.
>> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG serves a different purpose, though.", but looking into the
>> details it won't work as is.
>>
>> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG is used to mark memory early during boot that can later get
>> hotunplugged again and should be placed into ZONE_MOVABLE if the
>> "movable_node" kernel parameter is set.
>>
>> The confusing part is that we talk about "hotpluggable" but really mean
>> "hotunpluggable": the reason is that HW flags DIMM slots that can later be
>> hotplugged as "hotpluggable" even though there is already something
>> hotplugged.
> 
> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG name is indeed somewhat confusing, but still it's core
> meaning "this memory may be removed" which does not differ from what
> IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED means.
> 
> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG regions are indeed placed into ZONE_MOVABLE, but more
> importantly, they are avoided when we allocate memory from memblock.
> 
> So, in my view, both flags mean that the memory may be removed and it
> should not be used for certain types of allocations.

The semantics are different:

MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG: memory is indicated as "System RAM" in the 
firmware-provided memory map and added to the system early during boot; 
we want this memory to be managed by ZONE_MOVABLE with "movable_node" 
set on the kernel command line, because only then we want it to be 
hotpluggable again. kexec *has to* indicate this memory to the second 
kernel and can place kexec-images on this memory. After memory 
hotunplug, kexec has to be re-armed.

MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED: memory is not indicated as System RAM" in the 
firmware-provided memory map; this memory is always detected and added 
to the system by a driver; memory might not actually be physically 
hotunpluggable and the ZONE selection does not depend on "movable_core". 
kexec *must not* indicate this memory to the second kernel and *must 
not* place kexec-images on this memory.


I would really advise against mixing concepts here.


What we could do is indicate *all* hotplugged memory (not just 
IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED memory) as MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG and make 
MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG less dependent on "movable_node".

MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG for early boot memory: with "movable_core", place it in 
ZONE_MOVABLE. Even without "movable_core", don't place early kernel 
allocations on this memory.
MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG for all memory: don't place kexec images or on this 
memory, independent of "movable_core".


memblock would then not contain the information "contained in 
firmware-provided memory map" vs. "not contained in firmware-provided 
memory map"; but I think right now it's not strictly required to have 
that information if we'd go down that path.

>   
>> For example, ranges in the ACPI SRAT that are marked as
>> ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE will be marked MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG early during
>> boot (drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c:acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init()). Later, we
>> use that information to size ZONE_MOVABLE
>> (mm/page_alloc.c:find_zone_movable_pfns_for_nodes()). This will make sure
>> that these "hotpluggable" DIMMs can later get hotunplugged.
>>
>> Also, see should_skip_region() how this relates to the "movable_node" kernel
>> parameter:
>>
>> 	/* skip hotpluggable memory regions if needed */
>> 	if (movable_node_is_enabled() && memblock_is_hotpluggable(m) &&
>> 	    (flags & MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG))
>> 		return true;
> 
> Hmm, I think that the movable_node_is_enabled() check here is excessive,
> but I suspect we cannot simply remove it without breaking anything.

The reasoning is: without "movable_core" we don't want this memory to be 
hotunpluggable; consequently, we don't care if we place kexec-images on 
this memory. MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG is currently only active with "movable_core".

If we remove that check, we will always not place early kernel 
allocations on that memory, even if we don't care about ZONE_MOVABLE.

> 
> I'll take a deeper look on the potential consequences.
> 
> BTW, is there anything that prevents putting kexec to hot-unplugable memory
> that was cold-plugged on boot?

I think it depends on how the platform handles hotunpluggable DIMMs or 
hotunpluggable NUMA nodes. If the platform ends up indicates such memory 
via MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG, and "movable_core" is set, memory would be put 
into ZONE_MOVABLE and kexec would not place kexec-images on that memory.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb


_______________________________________________
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
	Jianyong Wu <Jianyong.Wu@arm.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vineet Gupta <vgupta@kernel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
	Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] memblock: add MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED to mimic IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 10:04:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0d6c86ba-076b-5d4b-33a8-da267f951a85@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YVYqdN7MFdzBlCVm@kernel.org>

On 30.09.21 23:21, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 06:54:01PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 29.09.21 18:39, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 05:05:17PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> Let's add a flag that corresponds to IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED.
>>>> Similar to MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG, most infrastructure has to treat such memory
>>>> like ordinary MEMBLOCK_NONE memory -- for example, when selecting memory
>>>> regions to add to the vmcore for dumping in the crashkernel via
>>>> for_each_mem_range().
>>> Can you please elaborate on the difference in semantics of MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG
>>> and MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED?
>>> Unless I'm missing something they both mark memory that can be unplugged
>>> anytime and so it should not be used in certain cases. Why is there a need
>>> for a new flag?
>>
>> In the cover letter I have "Alternative B: Reuse MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG.
>> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG serves a different purpose, though.", but looking into the
>> details it won't work as is.
>>
>> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG is used to mark memory early during boot that can later get
>> hotunplugged again and should be placed into ZONE_MOVABLE if the
>> "movable_node" kernel parameter is set.
>>
>> The confusing part is that we talk about "hotpluggable" but really mean
>> "hotunpluggable": the reason is that HW flags DIMM slots that can later be
>> hotplugged as "hotpluggable" even though there is already something
>> hotplugged.
> 
> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG name is indeed somewhat confusing, but still it's core
> meaning "this memory may be removed" which does not differ from what
> IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED means.
> 
> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG regions are indeed placed into ZONE_MOVABLE, but more
> importantly, they are avoided when we allocate memory from memblock.
> 
> So, in my view, both flags mean that the memory may be removed and it
> should not be used for certain types of allocations.

The semantics are different:

MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG: memory is indicated as "System RAM" in the 
firmware-provided memory map and added to the system early during boot; 
we want this memory to be managed by ZONE_MOVABLE with "movable_node" 
set on the kernel command line, because only then we want it to be 
hotpluggable again. kexec *has to* indicate this memory to the second 
kernel and can place kexec-images on this memory. After memory 
hotunplug, kexec has to be re-armed.

MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED: memory is not indicated as System RAM" in the 
firmware-provided memory map; this memory is always detected and added 
to the system by a driver; memory might not actually be physically 
hotunpluggable and the ZONE selection does not depend on "movable_core". 
kexec *must not* indicate this memory to the second kernel and *must 
not* place kexec-images on this memory.


I would really advise against mixing concepts here.


What we could do is indicate *all* hotplugged memory (not just 
IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED memory) as MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG and make 
MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG less dependent on "movable_node".

MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG for early boot memory: with "movable_core", place it in 
ZONE_MOVABLE. Even without "movable_core", don't place early kernel 
allocations on this memory.
MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG for all memory: don't place kexec images or on this 
memory, independent of "movable_core".


memblock would then not contain the information "contained in 
firmware-provided memory map" vs. "not contained in firmware-provided 
memory map"; but I think right now it's not strictly required to have 
that information if we'd go down that path.

>   
>> For example, ranges in the ACPI SRAT that are marked as
>> ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE will be marked MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG early during
>> boot (drivers/acpi/numa/srat.c:acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init()). Later, we
>> use that information to size ZONE_MOVABLE
>> (mm/page_alloc.c:find_zone_movable_pfns_for_nodes()). This will make sure
>> that these "hotpluggable" DIMMs can later get hotunplugged.
>>
>> Also, see should_skip_region() how this relates to the "movable_node" kernel
>> parameter:
>>
>> 	/* skip hotpluggable memory regions if needed */
>> 	if (movable_node_is_enabled() && memblock_is_hotpluggable(m) &&
>> 	    (flags & MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG))
>> 		return true;
> 
> Hmm, I think that the movable_node_is_enabled() check here is excessive,
> but I suspect we cannot simply remove it without breaking anything.

The reasoning is: without "movable_core" we don't want this memory to be 
hotunpluggable; consequently, we don't care if we place kexec-images on 
this memory. MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG is currently only active with "movable_core".

If we remove that check, we will always not place early kernel 
allocations on that memory, even if we don't care about ZONE_MOVABLE.

> 
> I'll take a deeper look on the potential consequences.
> 
> BTW, is there anything that prevents putting kexec to hot-unplugable memory
> that was cold-plugged on boot?

I think it depends on how the platform handles hotunpluggable DIMMs or 
hotunpluggable NUMA nodes. If the platform ends up indicates such memory 
via MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG, and "movable_core" is set, memory would be put 
into ZONE_MOVABLE and kexec would not place kexec-images on that memory.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb


_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-01  8:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-27 15:05 [PATCH v1 0/4] mm/memory_hotplug: full support for David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:05 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:05 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:05 ` [PATCH v1 1/4] mm/memory_hotplug: handle memblock_add_node() failures in add_memory_resource() David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:05   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:05   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:05 ` [PATCH v1 2/4] memblock: allow to specify flags with memblock_add_node() David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:05   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:05   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:19   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-09-27 15:19     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-09-27 15:19     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-09-27 15:19     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-09-28  9:38   ` Heiko Carstens
2021-09-28  9:38     ` Heiko Carstens
2021-09-28  9:38     ` Heiko Carstens
2021-09-29 16:25   ` Mike Rapoport
2021-09-29 16:25     ` Mike Rapoport
2021-09-29 16:25     ` Mike Rapoport
2021-09-29 16:30     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-29 16:30       ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-29 16:30       ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:05 ` [PATCH v1 3/4] memblock: add MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED to mimic IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:05   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:05   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-29 16:39   ` Mike Rapoport
2021-09-29 16:39     ` Mike Rapoport
2021-09-29 16:39     ` Mike Rapoport
2021-09-29 16:54     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-29 16:54       ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-29 16:54       ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-30 21:21       ` Mike Rapoport
2021-09-30 21:21         ` Mike Rapoport
2021-09-30 21:21         ` Mike Rapoport
2021-10-01  8:04         ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2021-10-01  8:04           ` David Hildenbrand
2021-10-01  8:04           ` David Hildenbrand
2021-10-01 14:03           ` Mike Rapoport
2021-10-01 14:03             ` Mike Rapoport
2021-10-01 14:03             ` Mike Rapoport
2021-09-27 15:05 ` [PATCH v1 4/4] mm/memory_hotplug: indicate MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED with IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:05   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:05   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:07 ` [PATCH v1 0/4] mm/memory_hotplug: full support for David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:07   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 15:07   ` 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=0d6c86ba-076b-5d4b-33a8-da267f951a85@redhat.com \
    --to=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=Jianyong.Wu@arm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=osalvador@suse.de \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
    --cc=vgupta@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] memblock: add MEMBLOCK_DRIVER_MANAGED to mimic IORESOURCE_SYSRAM_DRIVER_MANAGED' \
    /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

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.