From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com ([209.85.221.65]:44929 "EHLO mail-wr1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726574AbfLJKEg (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 05:04:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:04:32 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] mm, memory_hotplug: Provide argument for the pgprot_t in arch_add_memory() Message-ID: <20191210100432.GC10404@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20191209191346.5197-1-logang@deltatee.com> <20191209191346.5197-6-logang@deltatee.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Dan Williams Cc: Logan Gunthorpe , David Hildenbrand , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux ARM , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev , linux-s390 , Linux-sh , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra On Mon 09-12-19 12:43:40, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 12:24 PM Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2019-12-09 12:23 p.m., David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > On 09.12.19 20:13, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: [...] > > >> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG > > >> -int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size, > > >> +int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size, pgprot_t prot, > > >> struct mhp_restrictions *restrictions) > > > > > > Can we fiddle that into "struct mhp_restrictions" instead? > > > > Yes, if that's what people want, it's pretty trivial to do. I chose not > > to do it that way because it doesn't get passed down to add_pages() and > > it's not really a "restriction". If I don't hear any objections, I will > > do that for v2. > > +1 to storing this information alongside the altmap in that structure. > However, I agree struct mhp_restrictions, with the MHP_MEMBLOCK_API > flag now gone, has lost all of its "restrictions". How about dropping > the 'flags' property and renaming the struct to 'struct > mhp_modifiers'? Hmm, this email somehow didn't end up in my inbox so I have missed it before replying. Well, mhp_modifiers makes some sense and it would reduce the API proliferation but how do you expect the prot part to be handled? I really do not want people to think about PAGE_KERNEL or which protection to use because my experience tells that this will get copied without much thinking or simply will break with some odd usecases. So how exactly this would be used? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs