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, 20 Feb 2020 11:38:49 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, richardw.yang@linux.intel.com,
        david@redhat.com, osalvador@suse.de, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        rppt@linux.ibm.com, robin.murphy@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] mm/hotplug: Only use subsection map in VMEMMAP
 case
Message-ID: <20200220103849.GG20509@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20200220043316.19668-1-bhe@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200220043316.19668-1-bhe@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 20-02-20 12:33:09, Baoquan He wrote:
> Memory sub-section hotplug was added to fix the issue that nvdimm could
> be mapped at non-section aligned starting address. A subsection map is
> added into struct mem_section_usage to implement it. However, sub-section
> is only supported in VMEMMAP case.

Why? Is there any fundamental reason or just a lack of implementation?
VMEMMAP should be really only an implementation detail unless I am
missing something subtle.

> Hence there's no need to operate
> subsection map in SPARSEMEM|!VMEMMAP case. In this patchset, change
> codes to make sub-section map and the relevant operation only available
> in VMEMMAP case.
> 
> And since sub-section hotplug added, the hot add/remove functionality
> have been broken in SPARSEMEM|!VMEMMAP case. Wei Yang and I, each of us
> make one patch to fix one of the failures. In this patchset, the patch
> 1/7 from me is used to fix the hot remove failure. Wei Yang's patch has
> been merged by Andrew.

Not sure I understand. Are there more issues to be fixed?
>  include/linux/mmzone.h |   2 +
>  mm/sparse.c            | 178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  2 files changed, 127 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)

Why do we need to add so much code to remove a functionality from one
memory model?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs