On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 06:10:19PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 08.07.20 17:50, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 3:04 AM David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > > > > I'm not quite understanding the concern, or requirement about > > "updating memblock" in the hotplug path. The routines > > memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() and phys_to_target_node() are helpers to > > interrogate platform-firmware numa info through a common abstraction. > > They place no burden on the memory hotplug code they're just used to > > see if a hot-added range lies within an existing node span when > > platform-firmware otherwise fails to communicate a node. x86 can > > continue to back those helpers with numa_meminfo, arm64 can use a > > generic memblock implementation and other archs can follow the arm64 > > example if they want better numa answers for drivers. > > > > See memblock_add_node()/memblock_remove() in mm/memory_hotplug.c. I > don't want that code be reactivated for x86/s390x. That's all I am saying.
And these have actual meaning only on arm64 because powerpc does not rely on memblock for memory hot(un)plug, AFAIU. Anyway, at the moment we can use memblock on hotplug path only on arm64 and I don't think its the path worth exploring. > -- > Thanks, > > David / dhildenb > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
