>> + release_mem_region(range.start, range_len(&range));
> remove_memory() does a release_mem_region_adjustable(). Don't you
> actually want to release the *unaligned* region you requested?
Isn't it what we're doing here?
(The release_mem_region_adjustable() is using the same
dax_kmem-aligned range and there's no split/adjust)
Oh, I think I was messing up things (there is just too much going on in
Right, request_mem_region() and add_memory_driver_managed() are - and
were - called with the exact same range. That would have been clearer if
the patch would simply use range.start and range_len(&range) for both
calls (similar in the original code).
So, also the release calls have to use the same range. Agreed.
Meaning right now (+ parent marked as !BUSY), and if I am understanding
__request_region(iomem_res, range.start, range_len) -> alloc @parent
__request_region(parent.start, resource_size(parent)) -> alloc @child
__release_region(range.start, range_len) -> remove @child
__release_region(range.start, range_len) -> doesn't remove @parent because
The add/removal of this relies on !BUSY. But now I am wondering if the parent remaining
unreleased is deliberate even on CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE=y.
Interesting, I can only tell that virtio-mem expects that
remove_memory() won't remove the parent resource (which is !BUSY). So it
relies on the existing functionality.
I do wonder how walk_system_ram_range() behaves if both the parent and
the child are BUSY. Looking at it, I think it will detect the parent and
skip to the next range (without visiting the child) - which is not what
We could set the parent to BUSY just before doing the
release_mem_region() call, but that feels like a hack.
Maybe it's just easier to keep dax_kmem_res around ...
David / dhildenb