On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:15:53AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>On 15.09.20 11:06, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 09:35:30AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>
> static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
> {
> int rc = 0;
> @@ -1777,7 +1757,
On 15.09.20 11:06, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 09:35:30AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
{
int rc = 0;
@@ -1777,7 +1757,7 @@ static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64
start, u64 siz
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 09:35:30AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>>> static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
>>> {
>>> int rc = 0;
>>> @@ -1777,7 +1757,7 @@ static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64
>>> start, u64 size)
>>> memblock_remove(start,
>> static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
>> {
>> int rc = 0;
>> @@ -1777,7 +1757,7 @@ static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start,
>> u64 size)
>> memblock_remove(start, size);
>> }
>>
>> -__release_memory_resource(start, size);
>>
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 10:10:06PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>Let's make sure splitting a resource on memory hotunplug will never fail.
>This will become more relevant once we merge selected System RAM
>resources - then, we'll trigger that case more often on memory hotunplug.
>
>In general, t
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 10:10:06PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>Let's make sure splitting a resource on memory hotunplug will never fail.
>This will become more relevant once we merge selected System RAM
>resources - then, we'll trigger that case more often on memory hotunplug.
>
>In general, t
Let's make sure splitting a resource on memory hotunplug will never fail.
This will become more relevant once we merge selected System RAM
resources - then, we'll trigger that case more often on memory hotunplug.
In general, this function is already unlikely to fail. When we remove
memory, we free