Re: [Patch v5 0/7] acpi,memory-hotplug: implement framework for hot removing memory

[Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>]

Hi Rafael,

2012/11/16 9:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 02:59:30 PM Wen Congyang wrote:
>> The memory device can be removed by 2 ways:
>> 1. send eject request by SCI
>> 2. echo 1 >/sys/bus/pci/devices/PNP0C80:XX/eject
>>
>> In the 1st case, acpi_memory_disable_device() will be called.
>> In the 2nd case, acpi_memory_device_remove() will be called.
>> acpi_memory_device_remove() will also be called when we unbind the
>> memory device from the driver acpi_memhotplug or a driver initialization
>> fails.
>>
>> acpi_memory_disable_device() has already implemented a code which
>> offlines memory and releases acpi_memory_info struct . But
>> acpi_memory_device_remove() has not implemented it yet.
>>
>> So the patch prepares the framework for hot removing memory and
>> adds the framework into acpi_memory_device_remove().
>>
>> We may hotremove the memory device by this 2 ways at the same time.
>> So we remove the function acpi_memory_disable_device(), and use
>> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() which is used by 2nd case to implement it.
>> We lock device in acpi_bus_hot_remove_device(), so there is no
>> need to add lock in acpi_memhotplug.
>>
>> The last version of this patchset is here:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/8/121
>>
>> Note:
>> 1. The following commit in pm tree can be dropped now(The other two patches
>>     are already dropped):
>>     54c4c7db6cb94d7d1217df6d7fca6847c61744ab
>> 2. This patchset requires the following patch(It is in pm tree now)
>>     https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/1/225
>>
>> Changes from v4 to v5:
>> 1. patch2: new patch. use acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() to implement memory
>>     device hotremove.
>>
>> Changes from v3 to v4:
>> 1. patch1: unlock list_lock when removing memory fails.
>> 2. patch2: just rebase them
>> 3. patch3-7: these patches are in -mm tree, and they conflict with this
>>     patchset, so Adrew Morton drop them from -mm tree. I rebase and merge
>>     them into this patchset.
>>
>> Wen Congyang (6):
>>    acpi,memory-hotplug: deal with eject request in hotplug queue
>>    acpi_memhotplug.c: fix memory leak when memory device is unbound from
>>      the module acpi_memhotplug
>>    acpi_memhotplug.c: free memory device if acpi_memory_enable_device()
>>      failed
>>    acpi_memhotplug.c: don't allow to eject the memory device if it is
>>      being used
>>    acpi_memhotplug.c: bind the memory device when the driver is being
>>      loaded
>>    acpi_memhotplug.c: auto bind the memory device which is hotplugged
>>      before the driver is loaded
>>
>> Yasuaki Ishimatsu (1):
>>    acpi,memory-hotplug : add memory offline code to
>>      acpi_memory_device_remove()
>
> Well, I have tried _really_ hard to apply this patchset, but pretty much
> none of the patches except for [1/7] applied for me.  I have no idea what
> tree they are against, but I'm pretty sure it's not my tree.
>
> I _have_ applied patches [1-4/7] and pushed them to linux-pm.git/linux-next.

I checked your tree and found a mistake.
You merged a following patch into your tree.

commitid:2ba281f1
ACPI / memory-hotplug: introduce a mutex lock to protect the list
in acpi_memory_device

But it is wrong.

[1/7] patch is "acpi,memory-hotplug : add memory offline code to
acpi_memory_device_remove()". So we would like you to merge it
instead of commitid:2ba281f1.

Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu

> I needed to fix up almost all of them so that they applied, so please check
> if my fixups make sense (and let me know ASAP if that's not the case).
>
> If they are OK, please rebase the rest of the series on top of
> linux-pm.git/linux-next and repost.  I'm not going to take any more
> patches that don't apply from you.
>
> Moreover, I'm not going to take any more ACPI memory hotplug patches
> for v3.8 except for the [5-7/7] from this series (after they have been
> rebased and _if_ they apply), so please don't submit any until the v3.8
> merge window closes (of course, you're free to post RFCs, but I will
> ignore them).
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>