On 01/16/2013 02:01 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Things I'm wondering:
>>>>
>>>> - is there *really* a case for retaining the boot option if/when
>>>> SRAT support is available?
>>>
>>> Yes. If SRAT support is available, all memory which enabled hotpluggable
>>> bit are managed by ZONEMOVABLE. But performance degradation may
>>> occur by NUMA because we can only allocate anonymous page and page-cache
>>> from these memory.
>>>
>>> In this case, if user cannot change SRAT information, user needs a way to
>>> select/set removable memory manually.
>>
>> If I understand this correctly you mean that once SRAT parsing is
>> implemented, the user can use movablecore_map to override that SRAT
>> parsing, yes? That movablecore_map will take precedence over SRAT?
>
> I think movablecore_map (I prefer movablemem than it, btw) should behave so.
> because of, for past three years, almost all memory hotplug bug was handled
> only I and kamezawa-san and, afaik, both don't have hotremove aware specific
> hardware.
>
> So, if the new feature require specific hardware, we can't maintain this area
> any more.
>
It is more so than that: the design principle should always be that
lower-level directives, if present, take precedence over higher-level
directives. The reason for that should be pretty obvious: one of the
main uses of the low-level directives is to override the high-level
directives due to bugs or debugging needs.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
