From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp [192.51.44.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46570B6F77 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:02:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CBE43EE081 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:02:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A4845DEAD for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:02:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5009345DEA6 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:02:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4497E1DB803E for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:02:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from g01jpexchyt05.g01.fujitsu.local (g01jpexchyt05.g01.fujitsu.local [10.128.194.44]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6611DB8038 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:02:00 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4FEBF342.9030303@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:01:38 +0900 From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/12] memory-hogplug : check memory offline in offline_pages References: <4FEA9C88.1070800@jp.fujitsu.com> <4FEA9DB1.7010303@jp.fujitsu.com> <4FEAC916.7030506@cn.fujitsu.com> <4FEBE646.5090801@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Cc: len.brown@intel.com, Wen Congyang , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, paulus@samba.org, minchan.kim@gmail.com, cl@linux.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Kosaki-san, 2012/06/28 14:27, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu > wrote: >> Hi Wen, >> >> 2012/06/27 17:49, Wen Congyang wrote: >>> At 06/27/2012 01:44 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu Wrote: >>>> When offline_pages() is called to offlined memory, the function fails since >>>> all memory has been offlined. In this case, the function should succeed. >>>> The patch adds the check function into offline_pages(). >>> >>> You miss such case: some pages are online, while some pages are offline. >>> offline_pages() will fail too in such case. >> >> You are right. But current code fails, when the function is called to offline >> memory. In this case, the function should succeed. So the patch confirms >> whether the memory was offlined or not. And if memory has already been >> offlined, offline_pages return 0. > > Can you please explain why the caller can't check it? I hope to avoid > an ignorance > as far as we can. Of course, caller side can check it. But there is a possibility that offline_pages() is called by many functions. So I do not think that it is good that all functions which call offline_pages() check it. Thanks, Yasuaki Ishimatsu