On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 09:45:21AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 01:02:45PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 11:55:38AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote: > > > The new property ibm,dynamic-memory-v2 allows memory to be represented > > > in a more compact manner in device tree. > > > > I still need to look at this in more detail, but to start with: > > what's the rationale for this new format? > > > > It's more compact, but why do we care? The embedded people always > > whinge about the size of the deivce tree, but I didn't think that was > > really a concern with PAPR. > > Here's a real example of how this has affected us earlier: > > SLOF's CAS FDT buffer size was initially 32K, was changed to 64k to > support 1TB guest memory and again changed to 2MB to support 16TB guest > memory.
Ah.. I hadn't thought of the CAS buffer, that's a legitimate concern. > With ibm,dynamic-memory-v2 we are less likely to hit such scenarios. > > Also, theoretically it should be more efficient in the guest kernel > to handle LMB-sets than individual LMBs. > > We aren't there yet, but I believe grouping of LMBs should eventually > help us do memory hotplug at set (or DIMM) granularity than at individual > LMB granularity (Again theoretical possibility) Ok, sounds like it might be useful. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature