From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758054AbbCDCxL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 3 Mar 2015 21:53:11 -0500
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]:39889 "EHLO
	szxga03-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756036AbbCDCxK (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 3 Mar 2015 21:53:10 -0500
Message-ID: <54F67376.8050001@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 10:52:38 +0800
From: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
CC: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Xiexiuqi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: node-hotplug: is memset 0 safe in try_offline_node()?
References: <54F52ACF.4030103@huawei.com> <54F58AE3.50101@cn.fujitsu.com> <54F66C52.4070600@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <54F66C52.4070600@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.177.25.179]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0),
	refid=str=0001.0A020203.54F67388.0025,ss=1,re=0.001,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0,
	ip=0.0.0.0,
	so=2013-05-26 15:14:31,
	dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 855b6d3c02475b5bac27360141d803c2
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 2015/3/4 10:22, Xishi Qiu wrote:

> On 2015/3/3 18:20, Gu Zheng wrote:
> 
>> Hi Xishi,
>> On 03/03/2015 11:30 AM, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>
>>> When hot-remove a numa node, we will clear pgdat,
>>> but is memset 0 safe in try_offline_node()?
>>
>> It is not safe here. In fact, this is a temporary solution here.
>> As you know, pgdat is accessed lock-less now, so protection
>> mechanism (RCU？) is needed to make it completely safe here,
>> but it seems a bit over-kill.
>>

Hi Gu,

Can we just remove "memset(pgdat, 0, sizeof(*pgdat));" ?
I find this will be fine in the stress test except the warning 
when hot-add memory.

Thanks,
Xishi Qiu