Re: [PATCH 04/14] mm, memory_hotplug: get rid of is_zone_device_section

[Wei Yang]

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:49:53AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>On Sat 10-06-17 22:58:21, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>[...]
>> > Hmm... one question about the memory_block behavior.
>> >
>> > In case one memory_block contains more than one memory section.
>> > If one section is "device zone", the whole memory_block is not visible
>> > in sysfs. Or until the whole memory_block is full, the sysfs is visible.
>> >
>> 
>> Ok, I made a mistake here. The memory_block device is visible in this
>> case, while the sysfs link between memory_block and node is not visible
>> for the whole memory_block device.
>
>yes the behavior is quite messy
>
>> 
>> BTW, current register_mem_sect_under_node() will create the sysfs
>> link between memory_block and node for each pfn, while actually
>> we only need one link between them. If I am correct.
>> 
>> If you think it is fine, I would like to change this one to create the link
>> on section base.
>
>My longer term plan was to unify all the code to be either memory block
>or memory section oriented. The first sounds more logical from the user
>visible granularity point of view but there might be some corner cases

This means the granularity of hotplug is memory_block instead of mem_section?

While I see the alignment check of add_memory_resource() is SECTION size.

>which would require to use section based approach. I didn't have time to
>study that. If you want to play with that, feel free of course.

Yep, I am really want to help, while these inter-connected concepts makes me
confused. I need to learn more on these.

>-- 
>Michal Hocko
>SUSE Labs

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature