From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F566B4BF6 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:19:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id i14so4495939edf.17 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 00:19:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1543393167.2911.2.camel@suse.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, sparse: drop pgdat_resize_lock in sparse_add/remove_one_section() From: Oscar Salvador Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:19:27 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20181128002952.x2m33nvlunzij5tk@master> References: <20181127023630.9066-1-richard.weiyang@gmail.com> <20181127062514.GJ12455@dhcp22.suse.cz> <3356e00d-9135-12ef-a53f-49d815b8fbfc@intel.com> <4fe3f8203a35ea01c9e0ed87c361465e@suse.de> <20181128002952.x2m33nvlunzij5tk@master> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Wei Yang Cc: Dave Hansen , Michal Hocko , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, owner-linux-mm@kvack.org > My current idea is : I do not want to hold you back. I think that if you send a V2 detailing why we should be safe removing the pgdat lock it is fine (memhotplug lock protects us). We can later on think about the range locking, but that is another discussion. Sorry for having brought in that topic here, out of scope. -- Oscar Salvador SUSE L3