From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754515Ab2LGGos (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2012 01:44:48 -0500 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:10436 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753046Ab2LGGop (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2012 01:44:45 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,235,1355068800"; d="scan'208";a="6351360" Message-ID: <50C19022.9000501@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:43:46 +0800 From: Tang Chen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wen Congyang CC: 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 , Yasuaki Ishimatsu , Jianguo Wu , Jiang Liu Subject: Re: [Patch v4 09/12] memory-hotplug: remove page table of x86_64 architecture References: <1354010422-19648-1-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <1354010422-19648-10-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <1354010422-19648-10-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 2012/12/07 14:44:01, Serialize by Router on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 2012/12/07 14:44:02, Serialize complete at 2012/12/07 14:44:02 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/27/2012 06:00 PM, Wen Congyang wrote: > For hot removing memory, we sholud remove page table about the memory. > So the patch searches a page table about the removed memory, and clear > page table. (snip) > +void __meminit > +kernel_physical_mapping_remove(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) > +{ > + unsigned long next; > + bool pgd_changed = false; > + > + start = (unsigned long)__va(start); > + end = (unsigned long)__va(end); Hi Wu, Here, you expect start and end are physical addresses. But in phys_xxx_remove() function, I think using virtual addresses is just fine. Functions like pmd_addr_end() and pud_index() only calculate an offset. So, would you please tell me if we have to use physical addresses here ? Thanks. :) > + > + for (; start< end; start = next) { > + pgd_t *pgd = pgd_offset_k(start); > + pud_t *pud; > + > + next = pgd_addr_end(start, end); > + > + if (!pgd_present(*pgd)) > + continue; > + > + pud = map_low_page((pud_t *)pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd)); > + phys_pud_remove(pud, __pa(start), __pa(next)); > + if (free_pud_table(pud, pgd)) > + pgd_changed = true; > + unmap_low_page(pud); > + } > + > + if (pgd_changed) > + sync_global_pgds(start, end - 1); > + > + flush_tlb_all(); > +} > + > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE > int __ref arch_remove_memory(u64 start, u64 size) > { > @@ -692,6 +921,8 @@ int __ref arch_remove_memory(u64 start, u64 size) > ret = __remove_pages(zone, start_pfn, nr_pages); > WARN_ON_ONCE(ret); > > + kernel_physical_mapping_remove(start, start + size); > + > return ret; > } > #endif