On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Nathan Zimmer wrote: > We don't need to do register_memory_resource() since it has its own lock and > doesn't make any callbacks. >
We need to do it, just not under lock_memory_hotplug() :). > Also register_memory_resource return NULL on failure so we don't have anything > to cleanup at this point. > > > The reason for this rfc is I was doing some experiments with hotplugging of > memory on some of our larger systems. While it seems to work, it can be quite > slow. With some preliminary digging I found that lock_memory_hotplug is > clearly ripe for breakup. > > It could be broken up per nid or something but it also covers the > online_page_callback. The online_page_callback shouldn't be very hard to > break > out. > > Also there is the issue of various structures(wmarks come to mind) that are > only updated under the lock_memory_hotplug that would need to be dealt with. > > > cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> > cc: Tang Chen <[email protected]> > cc: Wen Congyang <[email protected]> > cc: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <[email protected]> > cc: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <[email protected]> > cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> > cc: Hedi <[email protected]> > cc: Mike Travis <[email protected]> > cc: [email protected] > cc: [email protected] Looks like you're modifying a pre-3.12 kernel version that doesn't have 27356f54c8c3 ("mm/hotplug: verify hotplug memory range"). When your patch is signed off, feel free to add Acked-by: David Rientjes <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
