Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190502184337.20538-1-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
 <20190502184337.20538-3-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> <cac721ed-c404-19d1-71d1-37c66df9b2a8@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <cac721ed-c404-19d1-71d1-37c66df9b2a8@intel.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 May 2019 11:01:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4greisKBSorzQWebcVOf2AqUH6DwbvNKMW0MQ5bCwYZrw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v5 2/3] mm/hotplug: make remove_memory() interface useable
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
        Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        Ross Zwisler <zwisler@kernel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
        =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.