Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [4/5] avoid check in acpi | From | keith mannthey <> | Date | Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:54:32 -0700 |
| |
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 09:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:13:16 -0700 > keith mannthey <kmannth@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 12:36 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > add_memory() does all necessary check to avoid collision. > > > then, acpi layer doesn't have to check region by itself. > > > > > > (*) pfn_valid() just returns page struct is valid or not. It returns 0 > > > if a section has been already added even is ioresource is not added. > > > ioresource collision check in mm/memory_hotplug.c can do more precise > > > collistion check. > > > added enabled bit check just for sanity check.. > > > > > > Signed-Off-By: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > > > > - start_pfn = info->start_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > > - end_pfn = (info->start_addr + info->length - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > > - > > > - if (pfn_valid(start_pfn) || pfn_valid(end_pfn)) { > > > > This check needs to go somewhare in the add path. I am thinking of a > > validate_add_memory_area call in add_memory (that can also be flexable > > to enable the reserve check of (this memory area in add_nodes). > > > > It is a useful protection for the sparsemem add path. I would rather > > the kernel be able to stand up to odd acpi namespaces or other > > mechanisms of invoking add_memory. > > > Hmm..Okay. I'll try some check patch today. please review it. > Maybe moving ioresouce collision check in early stage of add_memory() is good ? Yea. I am working a a full patch set for but my sparsemem and reserve add-based paths. It creates a valid_memory_add_range call at the start of add_memory. I should be posting the set in the next few hours.
> Note: > I remove pfn_valid() here because pfn_valid() just says section exists or > not. When adding seveal small memory chunks in one section, Only the first > small chunk can be added. Hmm... I thought memory add areas needed to be section aligned for the arch?
What protecting is there for calling add_memory on an already present memory range?
Thanks, Keith
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |