lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [v5 2/3] mm/hotplug: make remove_memory() interface useable
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:57 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > -static inline void remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size) {}
> > +static inline bool remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
> > +{
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > +}
>
> This seems like an appropriate place for a WARN_ONCE(), if someone
> manages to call remove_memory() with hotplug disabled.
>
> BTW, I looked and can't think of a better errno, but -EBUSY probably
> isn't the best error code, right?
>
> > -void remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
> > +/**
> > + * remove_memory
> > + * @nid: the node ID
> > + * @start: physical address of the region to remove
> > + * @size: size of the region to remove
> > + *
> > + * NOTE: The caller must call lock_device_hotplug() to serialize hotplug
> > + * and online/offline operations before this call, as required by
> > + * try_offline_node().
> > + */
> > +void __remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
> > {
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * trigger BUG() is some memory is not offlined prior to calling this
> > + * function
> > + */
> > + if (try_remove_memory(nid, start, size))
> > + BUG();
> > +}
>
> Could we call this remove_offline_memory()? That way, it makes _some_
> sense why we would BUG() if the memory isn't offline.

Please WARN() instead of BUG() because failing to remove memory should
not be system fatal.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-06 20:02    [W:0.089 / U:65.128 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site