From: osalvador@techadventures.net
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, pasha.tatashin@oracle.com,
Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm/memory_hotplug: Call register_mem_sect_under_node
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:18:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180622111839.10071-3-osalvador@techadventures.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180622111839.10071-1-osalvador@techadventures.net>
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
When hotpluging memory, it is possible that two calls are being made
to register_mem_sect_under_node().
One comes from __add_section()->hotplug_memory_register()
and the other from add_memory_resource()->link_mem_sections() if
we had to register a new node.
In case we had to register a new node, hotplug_memory_register()
will only handle/allocate the memory_block's since
register_mem_sect_under_node() will return right away because the
node it is not online yet.
I think it is better if we leave hotplug_memory_register() to
handle/allocate only memory_block's and make link_mem_sections()
to call register_mem_sect_under_node().
So this patch removes the call to register_mem_sect_under_node()
from hotplug_memory_register(), and moves the call to link_mem_sections()
out of the condition, so it will always be called.
In this way we only have one place where the memory sections
are registered.
Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
---
drivers/base/memory.c | 2 --
mm/memory_hotplug.c | 32 +++++++++++---------------------
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
index f5e560188a18..c8a1cb0b6136 100644
--- a/drivers/base/memory.c
+++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
@@ -736,8 +736,6 @@ int hotplug_memory_register(int nid, struct mem_section *section)
mem->section_count++;
}
- if (mem->section_count == sections_per_block)
- ret = register_mem_sect_under_node(mem, nid, false);
out:
mutex_unlock(&mem_sysfs_mutex);
return ret;
diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
index 504ba120bdfc..e2ed64b994e5 100644
--- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
+++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
@@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ int __ref add_memory_resource(int nid, struct resource *res, bool online)
u64 start, size;
bool new_node = false;
int ret;
+ unsigned long start_pfn, nr_pages;
start = res->start;
size = resource_size(res);
@@ -1151,34 +1152,23 @@ int __ref add_memory_resource(int nid, struct resource *res, bool online)
if (ret < 0)
goto error;
- /* we online node here. we can't roll back from here. */
- node_set_online(nid);
-
if (new_node) {
- unsigned long start_pfn = start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
- unsigned long nr_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
-
- ret = __register_one_node(nid);
- if (ret)
- goto register_fail;
-
- /*
- * link memory sections under this node. This is already
- * done when creatig memory section in register_new_memory
- * but that depends to have the node registered so offline
- * nodes have to go through register_node.
- * TODO clean up this mess.
- */
- ret = link_mem_sections(nid, start_pfn, nr_pages, false);
-register_fail:
- /*
- * If sysfs file of new node can't create, cpu on the node
+ /* If sysfs file of new node can't be created, cpu on the node
* can't be hot-added. There is no rollback way now.
* So, check by BUG_ON() to catch it reluctantly..
+ * We online node here. We can't roll back from here.
*/
+ node_set_online(nid);
+ ret = __register_one_node(nid);
BUG_ON(ret);
}
+ /* link memory sections under this node.*/
+ start_pfn = start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+ nr_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+ ret = link_mem_sections(nid, start_pfn, nr_pages, false);
+ BUG_ON(ret);
+
/* create new memmap entry */
firmware_map_add_hotplug(start, start + size, "System RAM");
--
2.13.6
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-22 11:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-22 11:18 [PATCH v2 0/4] Small cleanup for memoryhotplug osalvador
2018-06-22 11:18 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] mm/memory_hotplug: Make add_memory_resource use __try_online_node osalvador
2018-06-22 11:18 ` osalvador [this message]
2018-06-22 11:18 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] mm/memory_hotplug: Make register_mem_sect_under_node a cb of walk_memory_range osalvador
2018-08-15 22:21 ` Andrew Morton
2018-08-16 6:15 ` Oscar Salvador
2018-08-16 17:20 ` Pasha Tatashin
2018-06-22 11:18 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] mm/memory_hotplug: Drop unnecessary checks from register_mem_sect_under_node osalvador
2018-06-22 21:16 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] Small cleanup for memoryhotplug Reza Arbab
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=20180622111839.10071-3-osalvador@techadventures.net \
--to=osalvador@techadventures.net \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@oracle.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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).