Re: [PATCH 7/8] dax/kmem: add sysfs interface for runtime hotplug state control

[Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 11:55:21AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> On 1/14/26 09:51, Gregory Price wrote:
> > The dax kmem driver currently onlines memory automatically during
> > probe using the system's default online policy but provides no way
> > to control or query the memory state at runtime. Users cannot change
> > the online type after probe, and there's no atomic way to offline and
> > remove memory blocks together.
> > 
> > Add a new 'hotplug' sysfs attribute that allows userspace to control
> > and query the memory state. The interface supports the following states:
> > 
> >    - "offline": memory is added but not online
> >    - "online": memory is online as normal system RAM
> >    - "online_movable": memory is online in ZONE_MOVABLE
> >    - "unplug": memory is offlined and removed
> > 
> > The initial state after probe uses MMOP_SYSTEM_DEFAULT to preserve
> > backwards compatibility - existing systems with auto-online policies
> > will continue to work as before.
> > 
> > The state machine enforces valid transitions:
> >    - From offline: can transition to online, online_movable, or unplug
> >    - From online/online_movable: can transition to offline or unplug
> >    - Cannot switch directly between online and online_movable
> 
> Do we have to support these transitions right from the start?
> 
> What are the use cases for adding memory as offline and then onlining it,
> and why do we have to support that through this interface?
> 

After a re-read of the feedback - are you suggested to basically kill the
entire offline state of blocks entirely? (e.g. if a driver calls to
offline a block, instead fully unplug it)

I took a look at the acpi and ppc code you suggested, and I think they
also have "expect offline then online" as a default expectation.  I
can't speak to those users requirements.

This would definitely break things like daxctl/ndctl, but maybe that's
preferable?  I pointed out that patch 8 does this anyway - and I'd like
input from ndctl folks as to whether that should end in a NACK.

~Gregory