Re: [PATCH v3 10/11] mm/memory_hotplug: Make unregister_memory_block_under_nodes() never fail

Oscar Salvador
2019-07-16T08:46:34Z

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 01:10:33PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 01.07.19 12:27, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 01-07-19 11:36:44, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 10:51:44AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> Yeah, we do not allow to offline multi zone (node) ranges so the current
> >>> code seems to be over engineered.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, I am wondering why do we have to strictly check for already
> >>> removed nodes links. Is the sysfs code going to complain we we try to
> >>> remove again?
> >>
> >> No, sysfs will silently "fail" if the symlink has already been removed.
> >> At least that is what I saw last time I played with it.
> >>
> >> I guess the question is what if sysfs handling changes in the future
> >> and starts dropping warnings when trying to remove a symlink is not there.
> >> Maybe that is unlikely to happen?
> >
> > And maybe we handle it then rather than have a static allocation that
> > everybody with hotremove configured has to pay for.
> >
>
> So what's the suggestion? Dropping the nodemask_t completely and calling
> sysfs_remove_link() on already potentially removed links?
>
> Of course, we can also just use mem_blk->nid and rest assured that it
> will never be called for memory blocks belonging to multiple nodes.

Hi David,

While it is easy to construct a scenario where a memblock belongs to multiple
nodes, I have to confess that I yet have not seen that in a real-world scenario.

Given said that, I think that the less risky way is to just drop the nodemask_t
and do not care about calling sysfs_remove_link() for already removed links.
As I said, sysfs_remove_link() will silently fail when it fails to find the
symlink, so I do not think it is a big deal.

--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3