Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030243AbWHDDqz (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 23:46:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030248AbWHDDqz (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 23:46:55 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:48009 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030243AbWHDDqy (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 23:46:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 12:48:47 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: kmannth@us.ibm.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [4/5] avoid check in acpi Message-Id: <20060804124847.610791b5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <1154661826.5925.92.camel@keithlap> References: <20060803123604.0f909208.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <1154650396.5925.49.camel@keithlap> <20060804094443.c6f09de6.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <1154656472.5925.71.camel@keithlap> <20060804111550.ab30fc15.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <1154660408.5925.79.camel@keithlap> <20060804121308.e9720b49.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <1154661826.5925.92.camel@keithlap> Organization: Fujitsu X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.0 (GTK+ 2.6.10; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1961 Lines: 53 On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:23:46 -0700 keith mannthey wrote: > On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:13 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:00:08 -0700 > > keith mannthey wrote: > > > > > > > > > What protecting is there for calling add_memory on an already present > > > > > memory range? > > > > > > > > > For example, considering ia64, which has 1Gbytes section... > > > > > > Maybe 1gb sections is too large? > > > > > ia64 machines sometimes to have crazy big memory...so 1gb section is requested. > > Configurable section_size for small machines was rejected in old days. > > My HW supports about 512gb...... > > What if you add a partial section. Then online in sysfs and add another > section? messy.... Once a section is onlined, it cannot be re-onlined. My patch just helps memory holes in "a" memory hot add event. Our firmware team tells us they may create small memory holes in contiguous memory... > > > > What keeps 0xa0000000 to 0xa1000000 from being re-onlined by a bad call > > > to add_memory? > > > > Usual sparsemem's add_memory() checks whether there are sections in > > sparse_add_one_section(). then add_pages() returns -EEXIST (nothing to do). > > And ioresouce collision check will finally find collision because 0-0xbffffff > > resource will conflict with 0xa0000000 to 0xa10000000 area. > > But, x86_64 's (not sparsemem) add_pages() doen't do collision check, so it panics. > > I have paniced with your 5 patches while doing SPARSMEM.... I think > your 6th patch address the issues I was seeing. > Thank you for testing. BTW, could you send your current config ? looks I should visit source code again.. -Kame - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/