Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752479AbcKOP5S (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:57:18 -0500
Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:59755 "EHLO
        mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751199AbcKOP5Q (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:57:16 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:57:07 -0600
From: Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nathan Fontenot <nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Stewart Smith <stewart@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@au1.ibm.com>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/5] mm: remove x86-only restriction of movable_node
References: <1479160961-25840-1-git-send-email-arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1479160961-25840-3-git-send-email-arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <87lgwlb4u1.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87lgwlb4u1.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM Linux Technology Center
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161104 (1.7.1)
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 16111515-0024-0000-0000-000015078AB9
X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: 
X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00006082; HX=3.00000240; KW=3.00000007;
 PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000189; SDB=6.00781048; UDB=6.00376712; IPR=6.00558556;
 BA=6.00004883; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000;
 ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00013334; XFM=3.00000011;
 UTC=2016-11-15 15:57:14
X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused
x-cbparentid: 16111515-0025-0000-0000-00004627F666
Message-Id: <20161115155706.zft7iaw2fjtwu7yp@arbab-laptop.austin.ibm.com>
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-11-15_05:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0
 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam
 adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609300000
 definitions=main-1611150281
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 468
Lines: 11

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:35:42PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>Considering that we now can mark memblock hotpluggable, do we need to
>enable the bottom up allocation for ppc64 also ?

No, we don't, because early_init_dt_scan_memory() marks the memblocks 
hotpluggable immediately when they are added. There is no gap between 
the addition and the marking, as there is on x86, during which an 
allocation might accidentally occur in a movable node.

-- 
Reza Arbab