It's really nice if these kinds of things are broken up. First, replace
the old want_memblock parameter, then add the parameter to the
__add_page() calls.
> +/*
> + * NONE: No memory block is to be created (e.g. device memory).
> + * NORMAL: Memory block that represents normal (boot or hotp
> How should a policy in user space look like when new memory gets added
> - on s390x? Not onlining paravirtualized memory is very wrong.
Because we're going to balloon it away in a moment anyway?
We have auto-onlining. Why isn't that being used on s390?
> So the type of memory is very importa
On 10/03/2018 06:52 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> It is more than just memmaps (e.g. forking udev process doing memory
> onlining also needs memory) but yes, the main idea is to make the
> onlining synchronous with hotplug.
That's a good theoretical concern.
But, is it a problem we need to solve
On 10/12/20 9:19 AM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:56:35PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
>>> And I still don't really understand. After this patchset, there is still
>>> code
>>> nearly identical to the above (doing a temporary mapping just for a memcpy)
>>> that
>>> would still be
On 01/21/2014 12:02 PM, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
> The Lustre allocation macros track the memory usage across the whole
> filesystem,
> not just of a single structure that a mempool/slab/whatever would do.
> This is
> useful to know for debugging purposes (e.g. user complains about not having
> enoug
I was doing some code audits looking at scattergather uses, and noticed
that update() in drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/digest.c uses
sg.page which doesn't exist any longer, so this can't possibly compile.
Turns out that digest.c is actually unused. It doesn't get referenced
in a Makefile or
On 10/11/2016 04:50 PM, Ruchi Kandoi wrote:
> Any process holding a reference to these buffers will keep the kernel from
> reclaiming its backing pages. mm counters don't provide a complete picture of
> these allocations, since they only account for pages that are mapped into a
> process's address
On 08/02/2015 10:53 PM, Wang, Biao wrote:
> Consider the following case:
> Task A trigger lmk with a lock held, while task B try to
> get this lock, but unfortunately B is the very culprit task lmk select to
> kill. Then B will never be killed, and A will forever select B to kill.
> Such dead lock
On 07/23/2013 07:52 AM, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> The current scheme of involving user
> level code to close this loop obviously does not perform well under high
> memory pressure.
Adding memory usually requires allocating some large, contiguous areas
of memory for use as mem_map[] and other VM str
On 07/23/2013 08:54 AM, KY Srinivasan wrote:
>> > Adding memory usually requires allocating some large, contiguous areas
>> > of memory for use as mem_map[] and other VM structures. That's really
>> > hard to do under heavy memory pressure. How are you accomplishing this?
> I cannot avoid failure
On 07/23/2013 10:21 AM, KY Srinivasan wrote:
>> You have allocated some large, physically contiguous areas of memory
>> under heavy pressure. But you also contend that there is too much
>> memory pressure to run a small userspace helper. Under heavy memory
>> pressure, I'd expect large, kernel al
On 07/24/2013 12:45 PM, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> All I am saying is that I see two classes of failures: (a) Our
> inability to allocate memory to manage the memory that is being hot added
> and (b) Our inability to bring the hot added memory online within a reasonable
> amount of time. I am not sure
On 07/24/2013 02:29 PM, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> /*
> - * Wait for the memory block to be onlined.
> - * Since the hot add has succeeded, it is ok to
> - * proceed even if the pages in the hot added region
> - * have not been "onlin
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 i
On 07/25/2013 08:15 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> 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 availa
15 matches
Mail list logo
