From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de> Cc: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, nathanl@linux.ibm.com, cheloha@linux.ibm.com, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: don't rely on system state to detect hot-plug operations Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:31:47 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <96736256-a0a6-3126-3810-3380532b9621@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200914081921.GA15113@linux> >> static int register_mem_sect_under_node_hotplug(struct memory_block *mem_blk, >> void *arg) >> { >> const int nid = *(int *)arg; >> int ret; >> >> /* Hotplugged memory has no holes and belongs to a single node. */ >> mem_blk->nid = nid; >> ret = sysfs_create_link_nowarn(&node_devices[nid]->dev.kobj, >> &mem_blk->dev.kobj, >> kobject_name(&mem_blk->dev.kobj)); >> if (ret) >> returnr et; >> return sysfs_create_link_nowarn(&mem_blk->dev.kobj, >> &node_devices[nid]->dev.kobj, >> kobject_name(&node_devices[nid]->dev.kobj)); >> >> } >> >> Cleaner, right? :) No unnecessary checks. > > I tend to agree here, I like more a simplistic version for hotplug. > ... and while we're at it, we should rename register_mem_sect_under_node to something like "register_memory_block_under_node" - "section" is a legacy leftover here. We could factor out both sysfs_create_link_nowarn() calls into something like "do_register_memory_block_under_node" or similar, to minimize code duplication. >> One could argue if link_mem_section_hotplug() would be better than passing around the context. > > I am not sure if I would duplicate the code there. > We could just pass the pointer of the function we want to call to > link_mem_sections? either register_mem_sect_under_node_hotplug or > register_mem_sect_under_node_early? > Would not that be clean and clear enough? I don't particularly like passing around function pointers where it can be avoided (e.g., here exporting 3 functions now instead 1). Makes the interface harder to get IMHO. But I don't really care about that interface, easy to change later on. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de> Cc: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, nathanl@linux.ibm.com, cheloha@linux.ibm.com, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: don't rely on system state to detect hot-plug operations Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 08:31:47 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <96736256-a0a6-3126-3810-3380532b9621@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200914081921.GA15113@linux> >> static int register_mem_sect_under_node_hotplug(struct memory_block *mem_blk, >> void *arg) >> { >> const int nid = *(int *)arg; >> int ret; >> >> /* Hotplugged memory has no holes and belongs to a single node. */ >> mem_blk->nid = nid; >> ret = sysfs_create_link_nowarn(&node_devices[nid]->dev.kobj, >> &mem_blk->dev.kobj, >> kobject_name(&mem_blk->dev.kobj)); >> if (ret) >> returnr et; >> return sysfs_create_link_nowarn(&mem_blk->dev.kobj, >> &node_devices[nid]->dev.kobj, >> kobject_name(&node_devices[nid]->dev.kobj)); >> >> } >> >> Cleaner, right? :) No unnecessary checks. > > I tend to agree here, I like more a simplistic version for hotplug. > ... and while we're at it, we should rename register_mem_sect_under_node to something like "register_memory_block_under_node" - "section" is a legacy leftover here. We could factor out both sysfs_create_link_nowarn() calls into something like "do_register_memory_block_under_node" or similar, to minimize code duplication. >> One could argue if link_mem_section_hotplug() would be better than passing around the context. > > I am not sure if I would duplicate the code there. > We could just pass the pointer of the function we want to call to > link_mem_sections? either register_mem_sect_under_node_hotplug or > register_mem_sect_under_node_early? > Would not that be clean and clear enough? I don't particularly like passing around function pointers where it can be avoided (e.g., here exporting 3 functions now instead 1). Makes the interface harder to get IMHO. But I don't really care about that interface, easy to change later on. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-14 8:32 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-09-11 13:48 mm: fix memory to node bad links in sysfs Laurent Dufour 2020-09-11 13:48 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-11 13:48 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm: replace memmap_context by memplug_context Laurent Dufour 2020-09-11 13:48 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-11 14:59 ` David Hildenbrand 2020-09-11 14:59 ` David Hildenbrand 2020-09-11 16:23 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-11 16:23 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-11 17:34 ` David Hildenbrand 2020-09-11 17:34 ` David Hildenbrand 2020-09-14 8:49 ` Michal Hocko 2020-09-14 8:49 ` Michal Hocko 2020-09-14 8:51 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-14 8:51 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-14 8:59 ` Michal Hocko 2020-09-14 8:59 ` Michal Hocko 2020-09-11 13:48 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm: don't rely on system state to detect hot-plug operations Laurent Dufour 2020-09-11 13:48 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-14 7:57 ` David Hildenbrand 2020-09-14 7:57 ` David Hildenbrand 2020-09-14 8:05 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-14 8:05 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-14 8:19 ` Oscar Salvador 2020-09-14 8:19 ` Oscar Salvador 2020-09-14 8:31 ` David Hildenbrand [this message] 2020-09-14 8:31 ` David Hildenbrand 2020-09-14 9:16 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-14 9:16 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-14 9:19 ` David Hildenbrand 2020-09-14 9:19 ` David Hildenbrand 2020-09-14 8:39 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-14 8:39 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-14 8:55 ` Michal Hocko 2020-09-14 8:55 ` Michal Hocko 2020-09-11 13:48 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm: don't panic when links can't be created in sysfs Laurent Dufour 2020-09-11 13:48 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-11 14:01 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2020-09-11 14:01 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2020-09-11 16:27 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-11 16:27 ` Laurent Dufour 2020-09-14 8:59 ` Michal Hocko 2020-09-14 8:59 ` 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=96736256-a0a6-3126-3810-3380532b9621@redhat.com \ --to=david@redhat.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=cheloha@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=ldufour@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=mhocko@suse.com \ --cc=nathanl@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=osalvador@suse.de \ --cc=rafael@kernel.org \ --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=tony.luck@intel.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.