From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
To: Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@kernel.org>, "Pratik R. Sampat" <prsampat@amd.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, x86@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
ardb@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, osalvador@suse.de,
thomas.lendacky@amd.com, michael.roth@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] mm/memory_hotplug: Add support to accept memory during hot-add
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:48:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ce4334f8-5e54-4dbf-9be0-059279ef1962@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aYR0vqwyFPo3EKAi@thinkstation>
On 2/5/26 11:48, Kiryl Shutsemau wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 09:50:09PM -0600, Pratik R. Sampat wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/4/26 2:00 PM, David Hildenbrand (arm) wrote:
>>>
>>> I really hate that accepting (and un-accepting) hotplugged memory is different to accepting ordinary boot memory.
>>>
>>> Is there really no way we can get a reasonable implementation where we just call a generic accept_memory() and it will know what to do?
>>>
>>
>> Sure, that shouldn't be impossible.
>>
>> The only reason I initially kept them separate is because we accept and update
>> the bitmap unconditionally. This mainly applies to cold-plugged memory since
>> their bitmap state after remove shouldn't matter. However, as we are now
>> correctly setting the bits in the hot-remove path we should be fine accepting
>> from the for_each_set_bitrange_from() logic within accept_memory(), I think.
>>
>> Something like so?
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/unaccepted_memory.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/unaccepted_memory.c
>> index d11e7836200a..e56adfd382f8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/unaccepted_memory.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/unaccepted_memory.c
>> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, unsigned long size)
>> unsigned long range_start, range_end;
>> struct accept_range range, *entry;
>> phys_addr_t end = start + size;
>> + phys_addr_t bitmap_end;
>> unsigned long flags;
>> u64 unit_size;
>>
>> @@ -44,6 +45,21 @@ void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, unsigned long size)
>> return;
>>
>> unit_size = unaccepted->unit_size;
>> + bitmap_end = unaccepted->phys_base + unaccepted->size * unit_size * BITS_PER_BYTE;
>> +
>> + /* Memory completely beyond bitmap: hotplug memory, accept unconditionally */
>> + if (start >= bitmap_end) {
>> + arch_accept_memory(start, end);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* Memory partially beyond bitmap */
>> + if (end > bitmap_end) {
>> + arch_accept_memory(bitmap_end, end);
>> + end = bitmap_end;
>> + }
>
> You are calling arch_accept_memory() on every memory allocation if the
> memory is not represented in the bitmap. Hard NAK.
In which scenarios would we not have memory represented in the bitmap?
Guests with <4 GiB? (how does kexec work?) Anything else?
--
Cheers,
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-05 15:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-03 17:49 [PATCH v4 0/2] SEV-SNP Unaccepted Memory Hotplug Pratik R. Sampat
2026-02-03 17:49 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] mm/memory_hotplug: Add support to accept memory during hot-add Pratik R. Sampat
2026-02-04 11:22 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-02-04 19:59 ` David Hildenbrand (arm)
2026-02-05 3:50 ` Pratik R. Sampat
2026-02-05 10:51 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-02-04 20:00 ` David Hildenbrand (arm)
2026-02-05 3:50 ` Pratik R. Sampat
2026-02-05 10:48 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-02-05 15:48 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm) [this message]
2026-02-05 16:08 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-02-05 17:29 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-02-06 12:03 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-02-16 14:45 ` Pratik R. Sampat
2026-02-03 17:49 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] x86/sev: Add support to unaccept memory after hot-remove Pratik R. Sampat
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ce4334f8-5e54-4dbf-9be0-059279ef1962@kernel.org \
--to=david@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=michael.roth@amd.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=prsampat@amd.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox