[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [4/5] avoid check in acpi
    On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 11:15 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
    > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:54:32 -0700
    > keith mannthey <> wrote:
    > > > 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.
    > >
    > Ah..ok. but I wrote my own patch...and testing it now..

    Sure that is fine.
    > > > 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?
    > >
    > There are requests for memory-hot-add should allow to hot-add not-aligned memory.
    > Then, I wrote ioresouce collision check patch (before..but had bug..)
    > With ioresouce collistion check, alignments are not required at *add*.
    > (onlining is just for *offlined section*, now)
    > > What protecting is there for calling add_memory on an already present
    > > memory range?
    > >
    > For example, considering ia64, which has 1Gbytes section...

    Maybe 1gb sections is too large?

    > hot add following region.
    > ==
    > (A) 0xc0000000 - 0xd7ffffff (section 3)
    > (B) 0xe0000000 - 0xffffffff (section 3)
    > ==
    > (A) and (B) will go to the same section, but there is a memory hole between
    > (A) and (B). Considering memory (B) appears after (A) in DSDT.
    > After add_memory() against (A) is called, section 3 is ready.
    > Then, pfn_valid(0xe0000000) and pfn_valid(0xffffffff) returns true because
    > they are in section 3.
    > So, checking pfn_valid() for (B) will returns true and memory (B) cannot be
    > added. ioresouce collision check will help this situation.

    With iommus out there throwing aliment all off way the flexability is

    My question is this.

    Assuming 0-0xbfffffff is present.

    What keeps 0xa0000000 to 0xa1000000 from being re-onlined by a bad call
    to add_memory?


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-08-04 05:03    [W:0.054 / U:1.552 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site