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 10:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 10:07:49 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yes, I've found it too.
>
> Now applied patches [1-6/7], because I agree with Toshi Kani that patch [7/7]
> goes too far, so I'm not going to apply it.

I confirmed that patches were merged into your tree correctly.

Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu

>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>