From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64/hotplug: Process MEM_OFFLINE and MEM_CANCEL_OFFLINE events Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:16:18 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200415101618.GD4629@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <31ce355b-abf7-ac3b-a5b4-ae1b0a52fb3c@redhat.com> On Wed 15-04-20 09:35:33, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 15.04.20 08:39, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > This series improves arm64 memory event notifier (hot remove) robustness by > > enabling it to detect potential problems (if any) in the future. But first > > it enumerates memory isolation failure reasons that can be sent across a > > notifier. This series does not go beyond arm64 to explore if these failure > > reason codes could be used in other existing registered memory notifiers. > > Please do let me know if there is any other potential use cases, will be > > happy to incorporate next time around. Also should we add similar failure > > reasons for online_pages() as well ? > > > > This series has been tested on arm64, boot tested on x86 and build tested > > on multiple other platforms. > > > > I'm sorry, but I have to nack this series. Why? > > 1. A hotplug notifier should not have to bother why offlining failed. He > received a MEM_GOING_OFFLINE, followed by a MEM_CANCEL_OFFLINE. That's > all he really has to know. Undo what you've done, end of story. > > 2. Patch 2 just introduces dead code that should never happen unless > something is horribly broken in the core (memory offlined although > nacked from notifier). And, it (for *whatever reason*) thinks it's okay > to bail out if another noYtifier canceled offlining hotplugged memory. > > I fail to see the benefit for core changes and Agreed! If arm64 wants to check and report early bootmem memory offlining then just do it. There is no reason to add a whole machinery for that. Cancel notifier is indeed only supposed to restore the state before GOING_OFFLINE. > 4 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>, catalin.marinas@arm.com, Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64/hotplug: Process MEM_OFFLINE and MEM_CANCEL_OFFLINE events Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:16:18 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200415101618.GD4629@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <31ce355b-abf7-ac3b-a5b4-ae1b0a52fb3c@redhat.com> On Wed 15-04-20 09:35:33, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 15.04.20 08:39, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > This series improves arm64 memory event notifier (hot remove) robustness by > > enabling it to detect potential problems (if any) in the future. But first > > it enumerates memory isolation failure reasons that can be sent across a > > notifier. This series does not go beyond arm64 to explore if these failure > > reason codes could be used in other existing registered memory notifiers. > > Please do let me know if there is any other potential use cases, will be > > happy to incorporate next time around. Also should we add similar failure > > reasons for online_pages() as well ? > > > > This series has been tested on arm64, boot tested on x86 and build tested > > on multiple other platforms. > > > > I'm sorry, but I have to nack this series. Why? > > 1. A hotplug notifier should not have to bother why offlining failed. He > received a MEM_GOING_OFFLINE, followed by a MEM_CANCEL_OFFLINE. That's > all he really has to know. Undo what you've done, end of story. > > 2. Patch 2 just introduces dead code that should never happen unless > something is horribly broken in the core (memory offlined although > nacked from notifier). And, it (for *whatever reason*) thinks it's okay > to bail out if another noYtifier canceled offlining hotplugged memory. > > I fail to see the benefit for core changes and Agreed! If arm64 wants to check and report early bootmem memory offlining then just do it. There is no reason to add a whole machinery for that. Cancel notifier is indeed only supposed to restore the state before GOING_OFFLINE. > 4 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-15 10:24 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-04-15 6:39 [PATCH 0/2] arm64/hotplug: Process MEM_OFFLINE and MEM_CANCEL_OFFLINE events Anshuman Khandual 2020-04-15 6:39 ` Anshuman Khandual 2020-04-15 6:39 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm/hotplug: Enumerate memory range offlining failure reasons Anshuman Khandual 2020-04-15 6:39 ` Anshuman Khandual 2020-04-15 6:39 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64/hotplug: Process MEM_OFFLINE and MEM_CANCEL_OFFLINE Anshuman Khandual 2020-04-15 6:39 ` Anshuman Khandual 2020-04-15 7:35 ` [PATCH 0/2] arm64/hotplug: Process MEM_OFFLINE and MEM_CANCEL_OFFLINE events David Hildenbrand 2020-04-15 7:35 ` David Hildenbrand 2020-04-15 10:16 ` Michal Hocko [this message] 2020-04-15 10:16 ` Michal Hocko
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=20200415101618.GD4629@dhcp22.suse.cz \ --to=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \ --cc=david@redhat.com \ --cc=hsinyi@chromium.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=steve.capper@arm.com \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=yuzhao@google.com \ /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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.