On Fri 26-07-19 10:05:58, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 26.07.19 09:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 25-07-19 22:49:36, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> On 25.07.19 21:19, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > >>> We need to rationalize the locking here, not to add more hacks. > >> > >> No, sorry. The real hack is calling a function that is *documented* to > >> be called under lock without it. That is an optimization for a special > >> case. That is the black magic in the code. > > > > OK, let me ask differently. What does the device_hotplug_lock actually > > protects from in the add_memory path? (Which data structures) > > > > This function is meant to be used when struct pages and node/zone data > > structures should be updated. Why should we even care about some device > > concept here? This should all be handled a layer up. Not all memory will > > have user space API to control online/offline state. > > Via add_memory()/__add_memory() we create memory block devices for all > memory. So all memory we create via this function (IOW, hotplug) will > have user space APIs.
Ups, I have mixed add_memory with add_pages which I've had in mind while writing that. Sorry about the confusion. Anyway, my dislike of the device_hotplug_lock persists. I would really love to see it go rather than grow even more to the hotplug code. We should be really striving for mem hotplug internal and ideally range defined locking longterm. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
