From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752202Ab2KTG6y (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2012 01:58:54 -0500 Received: from mail-ia0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:36679 "EHLO mail-ia0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751886Ab2KTG6v (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2012 01:58:51 -0500 Message-ID: <50AB2A1A.6040606@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:58:34 +0800 From: Jaegeuk Hanse User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wen Congyang CC: Yasuaki Ishimatsu , x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, cmetcalf@tilera.com, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, David Rientjes , Jiang Liu , Len Brown , benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, Christoph Lameter , Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton , KOSAKI Motohiro , Jianguo Wu Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/12] memory-hotplug: unregister memory section on SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP References: <1351763083-7905-1-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <1351763083-7905-7-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <50AB21A4.8050709@gmail.com> <50AB2967.5010302@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <50AB2967.5010302@cn.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/20/2012 02:55 PM, Wen Congyang wrote: > At 11/20/2012 02:22 PM, Jaegeuk Hanse Wrote: >> On 11/01/2012 05:44 PM, Wen Congyang wrote: >>> From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu >>> >>> Currently __remove_section for SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP does nothing. But >>> even if >>> we use SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, we can unregister the memory_section. >>> >>> So the patch add unregister_memory_section() into __remove_section(). >> Hi Yasuaki, >> >> In order to review this patch, I should dig sparse memory codes in >> advance. But I have some confuse of codes. Why need encode/decode mem >> map instead of set mem_map to ms->section_mem_map directly? > The memmap is aligned, and the low bits are zero. We store some information > in these bits. So we need to encode/decode memmap here. Hi Congyang, Thanks for you reponse. But I mean why return (unsigned long)(mem_map - (section_nr_to_pfn(pnum))); in function sparse_encode_mem_map, and then return ((struct page *)coded_mem_map) + section_nr_to_pfn(pnum); in funtion sparse_decode_mem_map instead of just store mem_map in ms->section_mep_map directly. Regards, Jaegeuk > > Thanks > Wen Congyang > >> Regards, >> Jaegeuk >> >>> CC: David Rientjes >>> CC: Jiang Liu >>> CC: Len Brown >>> CC: Christoph Lameter >>> Cc: Minchan Kim >>> CC: Andrew Morton >>> CC: KOSAKI Motohiro >>> CC: Wen Congyang >>> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu >>> --- >>> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 13 ++++++++----- >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c >>> index ca07433..66a79a7 100644 >>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c >>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c >>> @@ -286,11 +286,14 @@ static int __meminit __add_section(int nid, >>> struct zone *zone, >>> #ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP >>> static int __remove_section(struct zone *zone, struct mem_section *ms) >>> { >>> - /* >>> - * XXX: Freeing memmap with vmemmap is not implement yet. >>> - * This should be removed later. >>> - */ >>> - return -EBUSY; >>> + int ret = -EINVAL; >>> + >>> + if (!valid_section(ms)) >>> + return ret; >>> + >>> + ret = unregister_memory_section(ms); >>> + >>> + return ret; >>> } >>> #else >>> static int __remove_section(struct zone *zone, struct mem_section *ms) >>