"Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.ve...@intel.com> writes: > On Mon, 2023-07-24 at 13:54 +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >> Vishal Verma <vishal.l.ve...@intel.com> writes: >> >> > >> > @@ -2035,12 +2056,38 @@ void try_offline_node(int nid) >> > } >> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(try_offline_node); >> > >> > -static int __ref try_remove_memory(u64 start, u64 size) >> > +static void __ref __try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size, >> > + struct vmem_altmap *altmap) >> > { >> > - struct vmem_altmap mhp_altmap = {}; >> > - struct vmem_altmap *altmap = NULL; >> > - unsigned long nr_vmemmap_pages; >> > - int rc = 0, nid = NUMA_NO_NODE; >> > + /* remove memmap entry */ >> > + firmware_map_remove(start, start + size, "System RAM"); >> >> If mhp_supports_memmap_on_memory(), we will call >> firmware_map_add_hotplug() for whole range. But here we may call >> firmware_map_remove() for part of range. Is it OK? >> > > Good point, this is a discrepancy in the add vs remove path. Can the > firmware memmap entries be moved up a bit in the add path, and is it > okay to create these for each memblock? Or should these be for the > whole range? I'm not familiar with the implications. (I've left it as > is for v3 for now, but depending on the direction I can update in a > future rev).
Cced more firmware map developers and maintainers. Per my understanding, we should create one firmware memmap entry for each memblock. -- Best Regards, Huang, Ying