Re: [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [4/5] avoid check in acpi

[Mika Penttilä]

keith mannthey wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:48 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>   
> > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:23:46 -0700
> > keith mannthey <kmannth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >     
>
>   
> > > > > What keeps 0xa0000000 to 0xa1000000 from being re-onlined by a bad call
> > > > > to add_memory?
> > > > >           
> > > > Usual sparsemem's add_memory() checks whether there are sections in
> > > > sparse_add_one_section(). then add_pages() returns -EEXIST (nothing to do).
> > > > And ioresouce collision check will finally find collision because 0-0xbffffff
> > > > resource will conflict with 0xa0000000 to 0xa10000000 area.
> > > > But, x86_64 's (not sparsemem) add_pages() doen't do collision check, so it panics.
> > > >         
> > > I have paniced with your 5 patches while doing SPARSMEM....  I think
> > > your 6th patch address the issues I was seeing.  
> > >
> > >       
>
>
> with the 6 patches things work as expected.  It is nice to have the
> sysfs devices online the correct amount of memory.  
>
> I was broken without this patch because invalid add_memory calls are
> made on by box (yet another issue) during boot. 
>
> I will build my patch set on top of your 6 patches. 
>
> Thanks,
>   Keith 
>
>   
Keith, are you working on the reserve hotadd case? It looks really 
broken, at the same time we both assume the hot add region contains RAM 
per e820 (use of reserve_bootmem_node()) and at the same time in other 
places (in reserve_hotadd()) that it may not contain RAM. And 
nodes_cover_memory() is broken no matter what we assume.


--Mika

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/