[PATCH] powerpc/mm: update arch_{add,remove}_memory() for radix

[Aneesh Kumar K.V]

Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au> writes:

> On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 14:37 -0500, Reza Arbab wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:47:20PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> > Reza Arbab <arbab at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> > > These functions are making direct calls to the hash table APIs,
>> > > leading to a BUG() on systems using radix.
>> > > 
>> > > Switch them to the vmemmap_{create,remove}_mapping() wrappers, and
>> > > move to the __meminit section.
>> > 
>> > They are really not the same. They can possibly end up using different
>> > base page size. Also vmemmap is available only with SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP
>> > enabled. Does hotplug depend on sparsemem vmemmap ?
>> 
>> I'm not sure. Maybe it's best if I back up a step and explain what lead 
>> me to this patch. During hotplug, you get
>> 
>> ...
>> 	arch_add_memory
>> 		create_section_mapping
>> 			htab_bolt_mapping
>> 				BUG_ON(!ppc_md.hpte_insert);
>> 
>> So it seemed to me that I needed a radix equivalent of 
>> create_section_mapping().
>> 
>> After some digging, I found hash__vmemmap_create_mapping() and 
>> radix__vmemmap_create_mapping() did what I needed. I did not notice the 
>> #ifdef SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP around them.
>
> I think that's more by luck than design. The vmemmap routines use
> mmu_vmemmap_psize which is probably but not definitely the same as
> mmu_linear_psize.
>
>> Could it be that the functions just need to be renamed 
>> hash__create_mapping()/radix__create_mapping() and moved out of #ifdef 
>> SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP?
>
> No, you need to use mmu_linear_psize for the hotplug case.
>
> But you can probably factor out a common routine that both cases use, and hide
> the hash vs radix check in that.
>
> And probably send me a patch to make MEMORY_HOTPLUG depend on !RADIX for v4.7?

Few other stuff we need to still look from Radix point
1) machine check handling/memory errors
2) kexec

-aneesh