From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753866AbdGCQcL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:32:11 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38216 "EHLO mx1.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751713AbdGCQcI (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:32:08 -0400
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:32:04 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memory-hotplug: Switch locking to a percpu rwsem
Message-ID: <20170703163204.GE11848@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1706291803380.1861@nanos>
 <20170630092747.GD22917@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1706301210210.1748@nanos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1706301210210.1748@nanos>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri 30-06-17 12:15:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
[...]
> Sure. Just to make you to mull over more stuff, find below the patch which
> moves all of this to use the cpuhotplug lock.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> 
> 8<--------------------
> Subject: mm/memory-hotplug: Use cpu hotplug lock
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:30:00 +0200
> 
> Most place which take the memory hotplug lock take the cpu hotplug lock as
> well. Avoid the double locking and use the cpu hotplug lock for both.

Hmm, I am usually not a fan of locks conflating because it is then less
clear what the lock actually protects. Memory and cpu hotplugs should
be largely independent so I am not sure this patch simplify things a
lot. It is nice to see few lines go away but I am little bit worried
that we will enventually develop a separate locking again in future for
some weird memory hotplug usecases.
 
> Not-Yet-Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[...]
> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
[...]
> @@ -2138,7 +2114,7 @@ void __ref remove_memory(int nid, u64 st
>  
>  	try_offline_node(nid);
>  
> -	mem_hotplug_done();
> +	cpus_write_lock();

unlock you meant here, right?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs