On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 11:15 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:54:32 -0700
> keith mannthey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Hmm..Okay. I'll try some check patch today. please review it.
> > > Maybe moving ioresouce collision check in early stage of add_memory() is good ?
> > Yea. I am working a a full patch set for but my sparsemem and reserve
> > add-based paths. It creates a valid_memory_add_range call at the start
> > of add_memory. I should be posting the set in the next few hours.
> >
> Ah..ok. but I wrote my own patch...and testing it now..
Sure that is fine.
>
> > > Note:
> > > I remove pfn_valid() here because pfn_valid() just says section exists or
> > > not. When adding seveal small memory chunks in one section, Only the first
> > > small chunk can be added.
> > Hmm... I thought memory add areas needed to be section aligned for the arch?
> >
> There are requests for memory-hot-add should allow to hot-add not-aligned memory.
> Then, I wrote ioresouce collision check patch (before..but had bug..)
> With ioresouce collistion check, alignments are not required at *add*.
> (onlining is just for *offlined section*, now)
>
> > What protecting is there for calling add_memory on an already present
> > memory range?
> >
> For example, considering ia64, which has 1Gbytes section...
Maybe 1gb sections is too large?
> hot add following region.
> ==
> (A) 0xc0000000 - 0xd7ffffff (section 3)
> (B) 0xe0000000 - 0xffffffff (section 3)
> ==
> (A) and (B) will go to the same section, but there is a memory hole between
> (A) and (B). Considering memory (B) appears after (A) in DSDT.
>
> After add_memory() against (A) is called, section 3 is ready.
> Then, pfn_valid(0xe0000000) and pfn_valid(0xffffffff) returns true because
> they are in section 3.
> So, checking pfn_valid() for (B) will returns true and memory (B) cannot be
> added. ioresouce collision check will help this situation.
With iommus out there throwing aliment all off way the flexability is
good.
My question is this.
Assuming 0-0xbfffffff is present.
What keeps 0xa0000000 to 0xa1000000 from being re-onlined by a bad call
to add_memory?
Thanks,
Keith
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
