On 8/8/23 12:05 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 07.08.23 14:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 07.08.23 14:27, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Sat 05-08-23 19:54:23, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote: >>> [...] >>>> Do you see a need for firmware-managed memory to be hotplugged in with >>>> different memory block sizes? >>> >>> In short. Yes. Slightly longer, a fixed size memory block semantic is >>> just standing in the way and I would even argue it is actively harmful. >>> Just have a look at ridicously small memory blocks on ppc. I do >>> understand that it makes some sense to be aligned to the memory model >>> (so sparsmem section aligned). In an ideal world, memory hotplug v2 >>> interface (if we ever go that path) should be physical memory range based. >> >> Yes, we discussed that a couple of times already (and so far nobody >> cared to implement any of that). >> >> Small memory block sizes are very beneficial for use cases like PPC >> dlar, virtio-mem, hyperv-balloon, ... essentially in most virtual >> environments where you might want to add/remove memory in very small >> granularity. I don't see that changing any time soon. Rather the opposite. >> >> Small memory block sizes are suboptimal for large machines where you >> might never end up removing such memory (boot memory), or when dealing >> with devices that can only be removed in one piece (DIMM/kmem). We >> already have memory groups in place to model that. >> >> For the latter it might be beneficial to have memory blocks of larger >> size that correspond to the physical memory ranges. That might also make >> a memmap (re-)configuration easier. >> >> Not sure if that is standing in any way or is harmful, though. >> > > Just because I thought of something right now, I'll share it, maybe it makes > sense. > > Assume when we get add_memory*(MHP_MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY) and it is enabled by the > admin: > > 1) We create a single altmap at the beginning of the memory > > 2) We create the existing fixed-size memory block devices, but flag them > to be part of a single "altmap" unit. > > 3) Whenever we trigger offlining of a single such memory block, we > offline *all* memory blocks belonging to that altmap, essentially > using a single offline_pages() call and updating all memory block > states accordingly. > > 4) Whenever we trigger onlining of a single such memory block, we > online *all* memory blocks belonging to that altmap, using a single > online_pages() call. > > 5) We fail remove_memory() if it doesn't cover the same (altmap) range. > > So we can avoid having a memory block v2 (and all that comes with that ...) > for now and still get that altmap stuff sorted out. As that altmap behavior > can be controlled by the admin, we should be fine for now. > > I think all memory notifiers should already be able to handle bigger > granularity, but it would be easy to check. Some internal things might > require a bit of tweaking. > > Just a thought. >
W.r.t enabling memmap_on_memory for ppc64, I guess I will drop patch 7 and resend the series so that Andrew can pick rest of the patches? -aneesh
