Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:39:16 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/8] mm,memory_hotplug: Allocate memmap from the added
 memory range
Message-ID: <YH/ktDG/9o2OHNGj@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20210416112411.9826-1-osalvador@suse.de>
 <20210416112411.9826-5-osalvador@suse.de>
 <YH6zQ1Dty9kJFkuk@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20210421081546.GD22456@linux>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210421081546.GD22456@linux>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 21-04-21 10:15:46, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:56:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > necessary. Using two different iteration styles is also hurting the code
> > readability. I would go with the following
> > 	for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; ) {
> > 		unsigned long order = min(MAX_ORDER - 1UL, __ffs(pfn));
> > 
> > 		while (start + (1UL << order) > end_pfn)
> >                         order--;
> > 		(*online_page_callback)(pfn_to_page(pfn), pageblock_order);
> > 		pfn += 1 << order;
> > 	}
> > 
> > which is what __free_pages_memory does already.
> 
> this is kinda what I used to have in the early versions, but it was agreed
> with David to split it in two loops to make it explicit.
> I can go back to that if it is preferred.

Not that I would insist but I find it better to use common constructs
when it doesn't hurt readability. The order evaluation can be even done
in a trivial helper.

> > > +	if (memmap_on_memory) {
> > > +		nr_vmemmap_pages = walk_memory_blocks(start, size, NULL,
> > > +						      get_nr_vmemmap_pages_cb);
> > > +		if (nr_vmemmap_pages) {
> > > +			if (size != memory_block_size_bytes()) {
> > > +				pr_warn("Refuse to remove %#llx - %#llx,"
> > > +					"wrong granularity\n",
> > > +					start, start + size);
> > > +				return -EINVAL;
> > > +			}
> > > +
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * Let remove_pmd_table->free_hugepage_table do the
> > > +			 * right thing if we used vmem_altmap when hot-adding
> > > +			 * the range.
> > > +			 */
> > > +			mhp_altmap.alloc = nr_vmemmap_pages;
> > > +			altmap = &mhp_altmap;
> > > +		}
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > >  	/* remove memmap entry */
> > >  	firmware_map_remove(start, start + size, "System RAM");
> > 
> > I have to say I still dislike this and I would just wrap it inside out
> > and do the operation from within walk_memory_blocks but I will not
> > insist.
> 
> I have to confess I forgot about the details of that dicussion, as we were
> quite focused on decoupling vmemmap pages from {online,offline} interface.
> Would you mind elaborating a bit more?

As I've said I will not insist and this can be done in the follow up.
You are iterating over memory blocks just to refuse to do an operation
which can be split to several memory blocks. See
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/YFtPxH0CT5QZsnR1@dhcp22.suse.cz and follow
walk_memory_blocks(start, size, NULL, remove_memory_block_cb)
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs