Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:31:24 +0900 | From | Yasuaki Ishimatsu <> | Subject | Re: [Patch v5 0/7] acpi,memory-hotplug: implement framework for hot removing memory |
| |
Hi Rafael,
2012/11/16 10:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, November 16, 2012 10:07:49 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote: >> Hi Rafael, >> >> 2012/11/16 9:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 02:59:30 PM Wen Congyang wrote: >>>> The memory device can be removed by 2 ways: >>>> 1. send eject request by SCI >>>> 2. echo 1 >/sys/bus/pci/devices/PNP0C80:XX/eject >>>> >>>> In the 1st case, acpi_memory_disable_device() will be called. >>>> In the 2nd case, acpi_memory_device_remove() will be called. >>>> acpi_memory_device_remove() will also be called when we unbind the >>>> memory device from the driver acpi_memhotplug or a driver initialization >>>> fails. >>>> >>>> acpi_memory_disable_device() has already implemented a code which >>>> offlines memory and releases acpi_memory_info struct . But >>>> acpi_memory_device_remove() has not implemented it yet. >>>> >>>> So the patch prepares the framework for hot removing memory and >>>> adds the framework into acpi_memory_device_remove(). >>>> >>>> We may hotremove the memory device by this 2 ways at the same time. >>>> So we remove the function acpi_memory_disable_device(), and use >>>> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() which is used by 2nd case to implement it. >>>> We lock device in acpi_bus_hot_remove_device(), so there is no >>>> need to add lock in acpi_memhotplug. >>>> >>>> The last version of this patchset is here: >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/8/121 >>>> >>>> Note: >>>> 1. The following commit in pm tree can be dropped now(The other two patches >>>> are already dropped): >>>> 54c4c7db6cb94d7d1217df6d7fca6847c61744ab >>>> 2. This patchset requires the following patch(It is in pm tree now) >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/1/225 >>>> >>>> Changes from v4 to v5: >>>> 1. patch2: new patch. use acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() to implement memory >>>> device hotremove. >>>> >>>> Changes from v3 to v4: >>>> 1. patch1: unlock list_lock when removing memory fails. >>>> 2. patch2: just rebase them >>>> 3. patch3-7: these patches are in -mm tree, and they conflict with this >>>> patchset, so Adrew Morton drop them from -mm tree. I rebase and merge >>>> them into this patchset. >>>> >>>> Wen Congyang (6): >>>> acpi,memory-hotplug: deal with eject request in hotplug queue >>>> acpi_memhotplug.c: fix memory leak when memory device is unbound from >>>> the module acpi_memhotplug >>>> acpi_memhotplug.c: free memory device if acpi_memory_enable_device() >>>> failed >>>> acpi_memhotplug.c: don't allow to eject the memory device if it is >>>> being used >>>> acpi_memhotplug.c: bind the memory device when the driver is being >>>> loaded >>>> acpi_memhotplug.c: auto bind the memory device which is hotplugged >>>> before the driver is loaded >>>> >>>> Yasuaki Ishimatsu (1): >>>> acpi,memory-hotplug : add memory offline code to >>>> acpi_memory_device_remove() >>> >>> Well, I have tried _really_ hard to apply this patchset, but pretty much >>> none of the patches except for [1/7] applied for me. I have no idea what >>> tree they are against, but I'm pretty sure it's not my tree. >>> >>> I _have_ applied patches [1-4/7] and pushed them to linux-pm.git/linux-next. >> >> I checked your tree and found a mistake. >> You merged a following patch into your tree. >> >> commitid:2ba281f1 >> ACPI / memory-hotplug: introduce a mutex lock to protect the list >> in acpi_memory_device >> >> But it is wrong. >> >> [1/7] patch is "acpi,memory-hotplug : add memory offline code to >> acpi_memory_device_remove()". So we would like you to merge it >> instead of commitid:2ba281f1. > > Yes, I've found it too. > > Now applied patches [1-6/7], because I agree with Toshi Kani that patch [7/7] > goes too far, so I'm not going to apply it.
I confirmed that patches were merged into your tree correctly.
Thanks, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
> > Thanks, > Rafael > >
| |