On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 05:29:31PM +0200, osalva...@techadventures.net wrote:
> From: Oscar Salvador
>
> With the assumption that the relationship between
> memory_block <-> node is 1:1, we can refactor this function a bit.
>
> This assumption is being taken from register_mem_sect_under_node()
>
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 03:37:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I guess so. But the node_online() check was silently removed?
A node can only get offline if all the memory and CPUs associated
with it are removed.
This is being checked in remove_memory()->try_offline_node().
There we check wheth
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 17:29:31 +0200 osalva...@techadventures.net wrote:
> From: Oscar Salvador
>
> With the assumption that the relationship between
> memory_block <-> node is 1:1, we can refactor this function a bit.
>
> This assumption is being taken from register_mem_sect_under_node()
> code.
From: Oscar Salvador
With the assumption that the relationship between
memory_block <-> node is 1:1, we can refactor this function a bit.
This assumption is being taken from register_mem_sect_under_node()
code.
register_mem_sect_under_node() takes the mem_blk's nid, and compares it
to the pfn's
4 matches
Mail list logo