Re: [PATCH 2/2] v1 powerpc/powernv: Enable removal of memory for in memory tracing

[Rashmica Gupta <rashmica.g@gmail.com>]

On 03/05/17 13:52, Rashmica Gupta wrote:
> On 28/04/17 19:52, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> ....
>>> +static int check_memblock_online(struct memory_block *mem, void *arg)
>>> +{
>>> +    if (mem->state != MEM_ONLINE)
>>> +        return -1;
>>> +
>>> +    return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int change_memblock_state(struct memory_block *mem, void *arg)
>>> +{
>>> +    unsigned long state = (unsigned long)arg;
>>> +
>>> +    mem->state = state;
>>> +    return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static bool memtrace_offline_pages(u32 nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 
>>> nr_pages)
>>> +{
>>> +    u64 end_pfn = start_pfn + nr_pages - 1;
>>> +
>>> +    if (walk_memory_range(start_pfn, end_pfn, NULL,
>>> +        check_memblock_online))
>>> +        return false;
>>> +
>>> +    walk_memory_range(start_pfn, end_pfn, (void *)MEM_GOING_OFFLINE,
>>> +              change_memblock_state);
>>> +
>> walk_memory_range() might be expensive, cant we just change the state
>> to MEM_GOING_OFFLINE while checking the state for MEM_ONLINE during
>> the first loop and bail out if any of the memblock is not in MEM_ONLINE
>> in the first place.
>
> Good idea.
>

This is assuming that it's more likely that the state of memory will be 
MEM_ONLINE rather than anything else (if the state isn't MEM_ONLINE we 
will still have to do a second call of walk_memory_range() to revert the 
state of any memory blocks that we changed). Seems like a reasonable 
assumption to me, thoughts?