On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Dave Hansen <d...@sr71.net> wrote: > On 07/25/2013 04:14 AM, KY Srinivasan wrote: >> As promised, I have sent out the patches for (a) an implementation of an >> in-kernel API >> for onlining and a consumer for this API. While I don't know the exact >> reason why the >> user mode code is delayed (under some low memory conditions), what is the >> harm in having >> a mechanism to online memory that has been hot added without involving user >> space code. > > KY, your potential problem, not being able to online more memory because > of a shortage of memory, is a serious one. > > However, this potential issue exists in long-standing code, and > potentially affects all users of memory hotplug. The problem has not > been described in sufficient detail for the rest of the developers to > tell if you are facing a new problem, or whether *any* proposed solution > will help the problem you face. > > Your propsed solution changes the semantics of existing user/kernel > interfaces, duplicates existing functionality, and adds code complexity > to the kernel.
Complexity, well, it's just a bit of code which belongs in the kernel. The mentioned unconditional hotplug loop through userspace is absolutely pointless. Such defaults never belong in userspace tools if they do not involve data that is only available in userspace and something would make a decision about that. Saying "hello" to userspace and usrspace has a hardcoded "yes" in return makes no sense at all. The kernel can just go ahead and do its job, like it does for all other devices it finds too. Kay -- 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/
