[PATCH RFC] virtio-mem: check against memhp_get_pluggable_range() which memory we can hotplug

[David Hildenbrand]

On 18.01.21 14:21, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/18/21 6:43 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> From: David Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com>
>>
>> Right now, we only check against MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS - but turns out there
>> are more restrictions of which memory we can actually hotplug, especially
>> om arm64 or s390x once we support them: we might receive something like
>> -E2BIG or -ERANGE from add_memory_driver_managed(), stopping device
>> operation.
>>
>> So, check right when initializing the device which memory we can add,
>> warning the user. Try only adding actually pluggable ranges: in the worst
>> case, no memory provided by our device is pluggable.
>>
>> In the usual case, we expect all device memory to be pluggable, and in
>> corner cases only some memory at the end of the device-managed memory
>> region to not be pluggable.
>>
>> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com>
>> Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com>
>> Cc: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko at kernel.org>
>> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador at suse.de>
>> Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang at linux.alibaba.com>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: catalin.marinas at arm.com
>> Cc: teawater <teawaterz at linux.alibaba.com>
>> Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual at arm.com>
>> Cc: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta at cloud.ionos.com>
>> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron at huawei.com>
>> Cc: hca at linux.ibm.com
>> Cc: Vasily Gorbik <gor at linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will at kernel.org>
>> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb at kernel.org>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
>> Cc: Heiko Carstens <hca at linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko at kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual at arm.com>
> 
> Hello David,
> 
> As your original patch was in the RFC state, I have just maintained
> the same here as well. But once you test this patch along with the
> new series, please do let me know if this needs to be converted to
> a normal PATCH instead. Thank you.

I'll give it a churn on x86-64, where not that much should change. It
will be interesting to test with arm64 in such corner cases in the future.

Thanks

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb