On 10/29/23 21:33, Xiao Yang wrote:
> On 2023/10/14 6:38, Dave Jiang wrote:
>>
>> On 10/9/23 03:52, Xiao Yang wrote:
>>> On 2023/9/21 6:57, Dave Jiang wrote:
>>>> + if (daxctl_memory_online_no_movable(mem)) {
>>>> + log_err(&rl, "%s: memory unmovable for %s\n",
>>>> + devname,
>>>> + daxctl_dev_get_devname(dev));
>>>> + return -EPERM;
>>>> + }
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> It seems wrong to check if memory is unmovable by the return number of
>>> daxctl_memory_online_no_movable(mem) here. IIRC, the return number of
>>> daxctl_memory_online_no_movable(mem)/daxctl_memory_op(MEM_GET_ZONE)
>>> indicates how many memory blocks have the same memory zone. So I think you
>>> should check mem->zone and MEM_ZONE_NORMAL as daxctl_memory_is_movable()
>>> did.
>> Do you mean:
>> rc = daxctl_memory_online_no_movable(mem);
>> if (rc < 0)
>> return rc;
>> if (rc > 0) {
>> log_err(&rl, "%s memory unmovable for %s\n' ...);
>> return -EPERM;
>> }
>>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> Is it necessary to try to online the memory region to the MEM_ZONE_NORMAL by
> daxctl_memory_online_no_movable(mem)? If you just want to check if the
> onlined memory region is in the MEM_ZONE_NORMAL, the following code seems
> better:
> mem->zone = 0;
> rc = daxctl_memory_op(mem, MEM_GET_ZONE);
> if (rc < 0)
> return rc;
> if (mem->zone == MEM_ZONE_NORMAL) {
> log_err(&rl, "%s memory unmovable for %s\n' ...);
> return -EPERM;
> }
>
Ah that was a mistake. I meant to call the query function and not the online op
function. Do you have any objections to
if (!daxctl_memory_is_movable(mem))
> Best Regards,
> Xiao Yang
