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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 E5947C2D0A7 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:23:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A5C6207EA for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:23:35 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8A5C6207EA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B27E3900008; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 03:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id AFE8D900007; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 03:23:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A3BC4900008; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 03:23:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0235.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.235]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD42900007 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 03:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin06.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B05F180AD807 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:23:34 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77246311548.06.brick90_610c836270e4 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200D8100A8928 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:23:34 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: brick90_610c836270e4 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2357 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf44.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:23:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA18B165; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:23:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 09:23:31 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Laurent Dufour Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, David Hildenbrand , Oscar Salvador , rafael@kernel.org, nathanl@linux.ibm.com, cheloha@linux.ibm.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't rely on system state to detect hot-plug operations Message-ID: <20200910072331.GB28354@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <5cbd92e1-c00a-4253-0119-c872bfa0f2bc@redhat.com> <20200908170835.85440-1-ldufour@linux.ibm.com> <20200909074011.GD7348@dhcp22.suse.cz> <9faac1ce-c02d-7dbc-f79a-4aaaa5a73d28@linux.ibm.com> <20200909090953.GE7348@dhcp22.suse.cz> <4cdb54be-1a92-4ba4-6fee-3b415f3468a9@linux.ibm.com> <20200909105914.GF7348@dhcp22.suse.cz> <74a62b00-235e-7deb-2814-f3b240fea25e@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <74a62b00-235e-7deb-2814-f3b240fea25e@linux.ibm.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 200D8100A8928 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Wed 09-09-20 18:07:15, Laurent Dufour wrote: > Le 09/09/2020 =E0 12:59, Michal Hocko a =E9crit=A0: > > On Wed 09-09-20 11:21:58, Laurent Dufour wrote: [...] > > > For the point a, using the enum allows to know in > > > register_mem_sect_under_node() if the link operation is due to a ho= tplug > > > operation or done at boot time. > >=20 > > Yes, but let me repeat. We have a mess here and different paths check > > for the very same condition by different ways. We need to unify those= . >=20 > What are you suggesting to unify these checks (using a MP_* enum as > suggested by David, something else)? We do have system_state check spread at different places. I would use this one and wrap it behind a helper. Or have I missed any reason why that wouldn't work for this case? --=20 Michal Hocko SUSE Labs