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;
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:27:57 +0200
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm,memory_hotplug: Introduce MHP_VMEMMAP_FLAGS
Message-ID: <20190725092751.GA15964@linux>
References: <20190625075227.15193-1-osalvador@suse.de>
 <20190625075227.15193-3-osalvador@suse.de>
 <CAPcyv4hvu+wp4tJJNW70jp2G_rNabyvzGMvDTS3PzkDCAFztYg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4hvu+wp4tJJNW70jp2G_rNabyvzGMvDTS3PzkDCAFztYg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 01:11:52PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:53 AM Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > This patch introduces MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE and MHP_MEMMAP_MEMBLOCK flags,
> > and prepares the callers that add memory to take a "flags" parameter.
> > This "flags" parameter will be evaluated later on in Patch#3
> > to init mhp_restrictions struct.
> >
> > The callers are:
> >
> > add_memory
> > __add_memory
> > add_memory_resource
> >
> > Unfortunately, we do not have a single entry point to add memory, as depending
> > on the requisites of the caller, they want to hook up in different places,
> > (e.g: Xen reserve_additional_memory()), so we have to spread the parameter
> > in the three callers.
> >
> > The flags are either MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE or MHP_MEMMAP_MEMBLOCK, and only differ
> > in the way they allocate vmemmap pages within the memory blocks.
> >
> > MHP_MEMMAP_MEMBLOCK:
> >         - With this flag, we will allocate vmemmap pages in each memory block.
> >           This means that if we hot-add a range that spans multiple memory blocks,
> >           we will use the beginning of each memory block for the vmemmap pages.
> >           This strategy is good for cases where the caller wants the flexiblity
> >           to hot-remove memory in a different granularity than when it was added.
> >
> >           E.g:
> >                 We allocate a range (x,y], that spans 3 memory blocks, and given
> >                 memory block size = 128MB.
> >                 [memblock#0  ]
> >                 [0 - 511 pfns      ] - vmemmaps for section#0
> >                 [512 - 32767 pfns  ] - normal memory
> >
> >                 [memblock#1 ]
> >                 [32768 - 33279 pfns] - vmemmaps for section#1
> >                 [33280 - 65535 pfns] - normal memory
> >
> >                 [memblock#2 ]
> >                 [65536 - 66047 pfns] - vmemmap for section#2
> >                 [66048 - 98304 pfns] - normal memory
> >
> > MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE:
> >         - With this flag, we will store all vmemmap pages at the beginning of
> >           hot-added memory.
> >
> >           E.g:
> >                 We allocate a range (x,y], that spans 3 memory blocks, and given
> >                 memory block size = 128MB.
> >                 [memblock #0 ]
> >                 [0 - 1533 pfns    ] - vmemmap for section#{0-2}
> >                 [1534 - 98304 pfns] - normal memory
> >
> > When using larger memory blocks (1GB or 2GB), the principle is the same.
> >
> > Of course, MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE is nicer when it comes to have a large contigous
> > area, while MHP_MEMMAP_MEMBLOCK allows us to have flexibility when removing the
> > memory.
> 
> Concept and patch looks good to me, but I don't quite like the
> proliferation of the _DEVICE naming, in theory it need not necessarily
> be ZONE_DEVICE that is the only user of that flag. I also think it
> might be useful to assign a flag for the default 'allocate from RAM'
> case, just so the code is explicit. So, how about:

Well, MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE is not tied to ZONE_DEVICE.
MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE was chosen to make a difference between:

 * allocate memmap pages for the whole memory-device
 * allocate memmap pages on each memoryblock that this memory-device spans

> 
> MHP_MEMMAP_PAGE_ALLOC
> MHP_MEMMAP_MEMBLOCK
> MHP_MEMMAP_RESERVED
> 
> ...for the 3 cases?
> 
> Other than that, feel free to add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3