linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] s390/mm: Define arch_get_mappable_range()
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:57:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201209145717.GD7160@osiris> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7484e153-6c77-8325-6195-621fe144011e@arm.com>

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 08:07:04AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> +	if (seg->end + 1 > VMEM_MAX_PHYS || seg->end + 1 < seg->start_addr) {
> >> +		rc = -ERANGE;
> >> +		goto out_resource;
> >> +	}
> >> +
...
> >> +struct range arch_get_mappable_range(void)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct range memhp_range;
> >> +
> >> +	memhp_range.start = 0;
> >> +	memhp_range.end =  VMEM_MAX_PHYS;
> >> +	return memhp_range;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
> >>  		    struct mhp_params *params)
> >>  {
> >> @@ -291,6 +300,7 @@ int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
> >>  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(params->pgprot.pgprot != PAGE_KERNEL.pgprot))
> >>  		return -EINVAL;
> >>  
> >> +	VM_BUG_ON(!memhp_range_allowed(start, size, 1));
> >>  	rc = vmem_add_mapping(start, size);
> >>  	if (rc)
> > Is there a reason why you added the memhp_range_allowed() check call
> > to arch_add_memory() instead of vmem_add_mapping()? If you would do
> 
> As I had mentioned previously, memhp_range_allowed() is available with
> CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG but vmem_add_mapping() is always available. Hence
> there will be a build failure in vmem_add_mapping() for the range check
> memhp_range_allowed() without memory hotplug enabled.
> 
> > that, then the extra code in __segment_load() wouldn't be
> > required.
> > Even though the error message from memhp_range_allowed() might be
> > highly confusing.
>
> Alternatively leaving __segment_load() and vmem_add_memory() unchanged
> will create three range checks i.e two memhp_range_allowed() and the
> existing VMEM_MAX_PHYS check in vmem_add_mapping() on all the hotplug
> paths, which is not optimal.

Ah, sorry. I didn't follow this discussion too closely. I just thought
my point of view would be clear: let's not have two different ways to
check for the same thing which must be kept in sync.
Therefore I was wondering why this next version is still doing
that. Please find a way to solve this.


  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-09 14:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-08  4:16 [PATCH 0/3] mm/hotplug: Pre-validate the address range with platform Anshuman Khandual
2020-12-08  4:16 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm/hotplug: Prevalidate the address range being added " Anshuman Khandual
2020-12-08  4:16 ` [PATCH 2/3] arm64/mm: Define arch_get_mappable_range() Anshuman Khandual
2020-12-08  4:16 ` [PATCH 3/3] s390/mm: " Anshuman Khandual
2020-12-08 15:27   ` Heiko Carstens
2020-12-09  2:37     ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-12-09 14:57       ` Heiko Carstens [this message]
2020-12-10  4:18         ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-12-10  6:58           ` Heiko Carstens
2020-12-10  7:04             ` David Hildenbrand
2020-12-10  7:40               ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-12-10  8:02                 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-12-10  8:58                   ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-12-10  9:39                     ` David Hildenbrand
2020-12-17 11:45               ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-12-17 12:18                 ` 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=20201209145717.GD7160@osiris \
    --to=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=gor@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=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).