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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 264A3C7618F for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 21:36:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06BC021880 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 21:36:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729023AbfGXVgx (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:36:53 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57944 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727373AbfGXVgx (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:36:53 -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 33E6CABC6; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 21:36:51 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:36:49 +0200 From: osalvador@suse.de To: Dan Williams Cc: Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Pavel Tatashin , Jonathan Cameron , David Hildenbrand , Anshuman Khandual , Vlastimil Babka , Linux MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm,memory_hotplug: Introduce MHP_VMEMMAP_FLAGS In-Reply-To: References: <20190625075227.15193-1-osalvador@suse.de> <20190625075227.15193-3-osalvador@suse.de> Message-ID: X-Sender: osalvador@suse.de User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2019-07-24 22:11, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:53 AM Oscar Salvador > wrote: >> >> This patch introduces MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE and MHP_MEMMAP_MEMBLOCK flags, >> and prepares the callers that add memory to take a "flags" parameter. >> This "flags" parameter will be evaluated later on in Patch#3 >> to init mhp_restrictions struct. >> >> The callers are: >> >> add_memory >> __add_memory >> add_memory_resource >> >> Unfortunately, we do not have a single entry point to add memory, as >> depending >> on the requisites of the caller, they want to hook up in different >> places, >> (e.g: Xen reserve_additional_memory()), so we have to spread the >> parameter >> in the three callers. >> >> The flags are either MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE or MHP_MEMMAP_MEMBLOCK, and >> only differ >> in the way they allocate vmemmap pages within the memory blocks. >> >> MHP_MEMMAP_MEMBLOCK: >> - With this flag, we will allocate vmemmap pages in each >> memory block. >> This means that if we hot-add a range that spans multiple >> memory blocks, >> we will use the beginning of each memory block for the >> vmemmap pages. >> This strategy is good for cases where the caller wants the >> flexiblity >> to hot-remove memory in a different granularity than when it >> was added. >> >> E.g: >> We allocate a range (x,y], that spans 3 memory blocks, >> and given >> memory block size = 128MB. >> [memblock#0 ] >> [0 - 511 pfns ] - vmemmaps for section#0 >> [512 - 32767 pfns ] - normal memory >> >> [memblock#1 ] >> [32768 - 33279 pfns] - vmemmaps for section#1 >> [33280 - 65535 pfns] - normal memory >> >> [memblock#2 ] >> [65536 - 66047 pfns] - vmemmap for section#2 >> [66048 - 98304 pfns] - normal memory >> >> MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE: >> - With this flag, we will store all vmemmap pages at the >> beginning of >> hot-added memory. >> >> E.g: >> We allocate a range (x,y], that spans 3 memory blocks, >> and given >> memory block size = 128MB. >> [memblock #0 ] >> [0 - 1533 pfns ] - vmemmap for section#{0-2} >> [1534 - 98304 pfns] - normal memory >> >> When using larger memory blocks (1GB or 2GB), the principle is the >> same. >> >> Of course, MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE is nicer when it comes to have a large >> contigous >> area, while MHP_MEMMAP_MEMBLOCK allows us to have flexibility when >> removing the >> memory. > > Concept and patch looks good to me, but I don't quite like the > proliferation of the _DEVICE naming, in theory it need not necessarily > be ZONE_DEVICE that is the only user of that flag. I also think it > might be useful to assign a flag for the default 'allocate from RAM' > case, just so the code is explicit. So, how about: > > MHP_MEMMAP_PAGE_ALLOC > MHP_MEMMAP_MEMBLOCK > MHP_MEMMAP_RESERVED > > ...for the 3 cases? > > Other than that, feel free to add: > > Reviewed-by: Dan Williams HI Dan, I'll be sending V3 tomorrow, with some major rewrites (more simplified). Thanks