From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B71C43603 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:34:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7071B2073B for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:34:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7071B2073B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0A83C6B2BD5; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 05:34:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 059036B2BD6; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 05:34:56 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id EB0CF6B2BD7; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 05:34:55 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0089.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.89]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D49BB6B2BD5 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 05:34:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C8CE4DCA for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:34:55 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76248873750.19.teeth66_dcb7dd538d03 X-HE-Tag: teeth66_dcb7dd538d03 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5601 Received: from mail-wr1-f66.google.com (mail-wr1-f66.google.com [209.85.221.66]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:34:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f66.google.com with SMTP id z3so19444211wru.3 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 02:34:54 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=uizXfprRj8fjney4P3afQoTDUjaSaVYSy+09p97UTek=; b=QxPPUKTGex7LQfFCiNmNv0lYcC456olbk7BBj5dj4qNckZnlKG39VEly6N7caZl9ZE 1lf/xYRA3y+QmlP1PwTDgx7I8hcwkxamrcpEHaBhBz/UwD1rtAeJ/8cEY4Pq/pEW4jDG KirdVsCBalUx4b40uAWSKyqdS6DgU3yNyew7KG9feg8Uh4ajmqxfGc74cdclDO7fI2QU wyRJjsf0P0yo8XDwotH0GIDO92vGC5Y5TmGZndbYx3NZ7vnlbXTThUkDusXmmP5z6W2f ln30p19Ts2zLhGf765iJhNE7erO2tzxnJQWEqC5UJ0REoOqmxy1pCmlwV7y8QkN3uxL4 U//Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXlcbkFKSDc1boGOBljSC+F9iG0NoDRQpOj7EEQwkj5aoY+gIOI euPoh338YO34Ch0V+q6elBk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz7NYibGMgFhBlmpiRw0nMRfb/8UeyOuRHFJOPIT/McfGwDtjqDvzf1agsTzUpbWsC0n1vSRQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:8297:: with SMTP id 23mr2231156wrc.379.1575974093765; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 02:34:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (prg-ext-pat.suse.com. [213.151.95.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t1sm2693672wma.43.2019.12.10.02.34.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 02:34:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:34:52 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Dan Williams , Logan Gunthorpe , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux ARM , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev , linux-s390 , Linux-sh , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] mm, memory_hotplug: Provide argument for the pgprot_t in arch_add_memory() Message-ID: <20191210103452.GF10404@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20191209191346.5197-1-logang@deltatee.com> <20191209191346.5197-6-logang@deltatee.com> <20191210100432.GC10404@dhcp22.suse.cz> <6da2b279-6a6d-d89c-a34c-962ed021d91d@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6da2b279-6a6d-d89c-a34c-962ed021d91d@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue 10-12-19 11:09:46, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 10.12.19 11:04, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 09-12-19 12:43:40, Dan Williams wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 12:24 PM Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2019-12-09 12:23 p.m., David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>>> On 09.12.19 20:13, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > [...] > >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG > >>>>> -int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size, > >>>>> +int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size, pgprot_t prot, > >>>>> struct mhp_restrictions *restrictions) > >>>> > >>>> Can we fiddle that into "struct mhp_restrictions" instead? > >>> > >>> Yes, if that's what people want, it's pretty trivial to do. I chose not > >>> to do it that way because it doesn't get passed down to add_pages() and > >>> it's not really a "restriction". If I don't hear any objections, I will > >>> do that for v2. > >> > >> +1 to storing this information alongside the altmap in that structure. > >> However, I agree struct mhp_restrictions, with the MHP_MEMBLOCK_API > >> flag now gone, has lost all of its "restrictions". How about dropping > >> the 'flags' property and renaming the struct to 'struct > >> mhp_modifiers'? > > > > Hmm, this email somehow didn't end up in my inbox so I have missed it > > before replying. > > > > Well, mhp_modifiers makes some sense and it would reduce the API > > proliferation but how do you expect the prot part to be handled? > > I really do not want people to think about PAGE_KERNEL or which > > protection to use because my experience tells that this will get copied > > without much thinking or simply will break with some odd usecases. > > So how exactly this would be used? > > I was thinking about exactly the same "issue". > > 1. default initialization via a function > > memhp_modifier_default_init(&modified); > > 2. a flag that unlocks the prot field (default:0). Without the flag, it > is ignored. We can keep the current initialization then. > > Other ideas? 3. a prot mask to apply on top of PAGE_KERNEL? Or would that be insufficient/clumsy? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs