On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 1:44 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 12.01.21 10:18, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:16 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> > Well, I would love to have no surprises either. So far there was not
> > actual argument why the pmem
On 12.01.21 10:18, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:16 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
> Well, I would love to have no surprises either. So far there was not
> actual argument why the pmem reserved space cannot be fully initialized.
Yes, I'm still hoping
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:16 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> Well, I would love to have no surprises either. So far there was not
> >>> actual argument why the pmem reserved space cannot be fully initialized.
> >>
> >> Yes, I'm still hoping Dan can clarify that.
> >
> > Complexity
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 1:55 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Tue 05-01-21 20:07:18, Dan Williams wrote:
> > While pfn_to_online_page() is able to determine pfn_valid() at
> > subsection granularity it is not able to reliably determine if a given
> > pfn is also online if the section is mixed with
[...]
>>> Well, I would love to have no surprises either. So far there was not
>>> actual argument why the pmem reserved space cannot be fully initialized.
>>
>> Yes, I'm still hoping Dan can clarify that.
>
> Complexity and effective utility (once pfn_to_online_page() is fixed)
> are the
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 3:23 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 06.01.21 11:42, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 06-01-21 10:56:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Note that this is not sufficient in the general case. I already
> >> mentioned that we effectively override an already
On Wed 06-01-21 12:22:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.01.21 11:42, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 06-01-21 10:56:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Note that this is not sufficient in the general case. I already
> >> mentioned that we effectively override an already initialized
On 06.01.21 11:42, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 06-01-21 10:56:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [...]
>> Note that this is not sufficient in the general case. I already
>> mentioned that we effectively override an already initialized memmap.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> [SECTION ]
>> Before:
On Wed 06-01-21 10:56:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> Note that this is not sufficient in the general case. I already
> mentioned that we effectively override an already initialized memmap.
>
> ---
>
> [SECTION ]
> Before:
> [ ZONE_NORMAL ][Hole ]
>
> The hole
> Am 06.01.2021 um 05:08 schrieb Dan Williams :
>
> While pfn_to_online_page() is able to determine pfn_valid() at
> subsection granularity it is not able to reliably determine if a given
> pfn is also online if the section is mixed with ZONE_DEVICE pfns.
>
> Update move_pfn_range_to_zone()
On 06.01.21 05:07, Dan Williams wrote:
> While pfn_to_online_page() is able to determine pfn_valid() at
> subsection granularity it is not able to reliably determine if a given
> pfn is also online if the section is mixed with ZONE_DEVICE pfns.
>
> Update move_pfn_range_to_zone() to flag
On Tue 05-01-21 20:07:18, Dan Williams wrote:
> While pfn_to_online_page() is able to determine pfn_valid() at
> subsection granularity it is not able to reliably determine if a given
> pfn is also online if the section is mixed with ZONE_DEVICE pfns.
I would call out the problem more explicitly.
While pfn_to_online_page() is able to determine pfn_valid() at
subsection granularity it is not able to reliably determine if a given
pfn is also online if the section is mixed with ZONE_DEVICE pfns.
Update move_pfn_range_to_zone() to flag (SECTION_TAINT_ZONE_DEVICE) a
section that mixes
13 matches
Mail list logo
