From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx129.postini.com [74.125.245.129]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 69D996B0039 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <519B238D.3070900@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 15:34:37 +0800 From: Xishi Qiu MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ACPI / scan: Add second pass of companion offlining to hot-remove code References: <2250271.rGYN6WlBxf@vostro.rjw.lan> <3662688.5fMZaG7XgD@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <3662688.5fMZaG7XgD@vostro.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List , LKML , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Toshi Kani , Wen Congyang , Tang Chen , Yasuaki Ishimatsu , Andrew Morton , Jiang Liu , Vasilis Liaskovitis , linux-mm@kvack.org On 2013/5/19 7:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > As indicated by comments in mm/memory_hotplug.c:remove_memory(), > if CONFIG_MEMCG is set, it may not be possible to offline all of the > memory blocks held by one module (FRU) in one pass (because one of > them may be used by the others to store page cgroup in that case > and that block has to be offlined before the other ones). > > To handle that arguably corner case, add a second pass of companion > device offlining to acpi_scan_hot_remove() and make it ignore errors > returned in the first pass (and make it skip the second pass if the > first one is successful). > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > --- > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > @@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_offline_comp > { > struct acpi_device *device = NULL; > struct acpi_device_physical_node *pn; > + bool second_pass = (bool)data; > acpi_status status = AE_OK; > > if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device)) > @@ -141,15 +142,26 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_offline_comp > list_for_each_entry(pn, &device->physical_node_list, node) { > int ret; > > + if (second_pass) { > + /* Skip devices offlined by the first pass. */ > + if (pn->put_online) should it be "if (!pn->put_online)" ? Thanks Xishi Qiu > + continue; > + } else { > + pn->put_online = false; > + } > ret = device_offline(pn->dev); > if (acpi_force_hot_remove) > continue; > > - if (ret < 0) { > - status = AE_ERROR; > - break; > + if (ret >= 0) { > + pn->put_online = !ret; > + } else { > + *ret_p = pn->dev; > + if (second_pass) { > + status = AE_ERROR; > + break; > + } > } > - pn->put_online = !ret; > } > > mutex_unlock(&device->physical_node_lock); -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org