On 20.12.18 14:08, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 20-12-18 13:58:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 30.11.18 18:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> This is the second approach, introducing more meaningful memory block
>>> types and not changing online behavior in the kernel. It is based on
>>> latest
On 20.12.18 14:08, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 20-12-18 13:58:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 30.11.18 18:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> This is the second approach, introducing more meaningful memory block
>>> types and not changing online behavior in the kernel. It is based on
>>> latest
On Thu 20-12-18 13:58:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 30.11.18 18:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > This is the second approach, introducing more meaningful memory block
> > types and not changing online behavior in the kernel. It is based on
> > latest linux-next.
> >
> > As we found out during
On 30.11.18 18:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> This is the second approach, introducing more meaningful memory block
> types and not changing online behavior in the kernel. It is based on
> latest linux-next.
>
> As we found out during dicussion, user space should always handle onlining
> of
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 06:59:18PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>This is the second approach, introducing more meaningful memory block
>types and not changing online behavior in the kernel. It is based on
>latest linux-next.
>
>As we found out during dicussion, user space should always handle
This is the second approach, introducing more meaningful memory block
types and not changing online behavior in the kernel. It is based on
latest linux-next.
As we found out during dicussion, user space should always handle onlining
of memory, in any case. However in order to make smart decisions
