Le 10/09/2020 à 13:12, Michal Hocko a écrit :
On Thu 10-09-20 09:51:39, Laurent Dufour wrote:
Le 10/09/2020 à 09:23, Michal Hocko a écrit :
On Wed 09-09-20 18:07:15, Laurent Dufour wrote:
Le 09/09/2020 à 12:59, Michal Hocko a écrit :
On Wed 09-09-20 11:21:58, Laurent Dufour wrote:
[...]
For
On 10.09.20 14:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 10-09-20 14:03:48, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:35:32PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>
>>> That points has been raised by David, quoting him here:
>>>
IIRC, ACPI can hotadd memory while SCHEDULING, this patch would break
Le 10/09/2020 à 14:00, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
On 10.09.20 13:35, Laurent Dufour wrote:
Le 10/09/2020 à 13:12, Michal Hocko a écrit :
On Thu 10-09-20 09:51:39, Laurent Dufour wrote:
Le 10/09/2020 à 09:23, Michal Hocko a écrit :
On Wed 09-09-20 18:07:15, Laurent Dufour wrote:
Le 09/09/202
On 10.09.20 14:36, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> Le 10/09/2020 à 14:00, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
>> On 10.09.20 13:35, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>> Le 10/09/2020 à 13:12, Michal Hocko a écrit :
On Thu 10-09-20 09:51:39, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> Le 10/09/2020 à 09:23, Michal Hocko a écrit :
>>
On Thu 10-09-20 14:03:48, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:35:32PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>
> > That points has been raised by David, quoting him here:
> >
> > > IIRC, ACPI can hotadd memory while SCHEDULING, this patch would break
> > > that.
> > >
> > > Ccing Oscar, I
On Thu 10-09-20 15:39:00, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 02:48:47PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Is there any actual usecase for a configuration like this? What is the
> > > point to statically define additional memory like this when the same can
> > > be achieved on the same c
On Thu 10-09-20 14:49:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 10.09.20 14:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 10-09-20 14:03:48, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:35:32PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> >>
> >>> That points has been raised by David, quoting him here:
> >>>
> IIRC
On Thu 10-09-20 15:51:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 10-09-20 15:39:00, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 02:48:47PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > > Forgot to ask one more thing. Who is going to online that memory when
> > > userspace is not running yet?
> >
> > Depends, i
>> Also, under QEMU, just do a reboot with hotplugged memory and you're in
>> the very same situation.
>
> OK, I didn't know that. I thought the memory would be presented as a
> normal memory after reboot. Thanks for the clarification.
That's one of the cases where QEMU differs to actual hardware
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 02:48:47PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Is there any actual usecase for a configuration like this? What is the
> > point to statically define additional memory like this when the same can
> > be achieved on the same command line?
Well, for qemu I am not sure, but if David
On Thu 10-09-20 14:47:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 10-09-20 14:03:48, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:35:32PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> >
> > > That points has been raised by David, quoting him here:
> > >
> > > > IIRC, ACPI can hotadd memory while SCHEDULING, this
Le 10/09/2020 à 14:03, Oscar Salvador a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:35:32PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
That points has been raised by David, quoting him here:
IIRC, ACPI can hotadd memory while SCHEDULING, this patch would break that.
Ccing Oscar, I think he mentioned recently tha
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:35:32PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> That points has been raised by David, quoting him here:
>
> > IIRC, ACPI can hotadd memory while SCHEDULING, this patch would break that.
> >
> > Ccing Oscar, I think he mentioned recently that this is the case with ACPI.
>
> Os
On Thu 10-09-20 13:35:32, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> Le 10/09/2020 à 13:12, Michal Hocko a écrit :
> > On Thu 10-09-20 09:51:39, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> > > Le 10/09/2020 à 09:23, Michal Hocko a écrit :
> > > > On Wed 09-09-20 18:07:15, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> > > > > Le 09/09/2020 à 12:59, Michal Hoc
On 10.09.20 13:35, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> Le 10/09/2020 à 13:12, Michal Hocko a écrit :
>> On Thu 10-09-20 09:51:39, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>> Le 10/09/2020 à 09:23, Michal Hocko a écrit :
On Wed 09-09-20 18:07:15, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> Le 09/09/2020 à 12:59, Michal Hocko a écrit :
On Thu 10-09-20 09:51:39, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> Le 10/09/2020 à 09:23, Michal Hocko a écrit :
> > On Wed 09-09-20 18:07:15, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> > > Le 09/09/2020 à 12:59, Michal Hocko a écrit :
> > > > On Wed 09-09-20 11:21:58, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > For the point a, using
Le 10/09/2020 à 09:23, Michal Hocko a écrit :
On Wed 09-09-20 18:07:15, Laurent Dufour wrote:
Le 09/09/2020 à 12:59, Michal Hocko a écrit :
On Wed 09-09-20 11:21:58, Laurent Dufour wrote:
[...]
For the point a, using the enum allows to know in
register_mem_sect_under_node() if the link operat
On Wed 09-09-20 18:07:15, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> Le 09/09/2020 à 12:59, Michal Hocko a écrit :
> > On Wed 09-09-20 11:21:58, Laurent Dufour wrote:
[...]
> > > For the point a, using the enum allows to know in
> > > register_mem_sect_under_node() if the link operation is due to a hotplug
> > > oper
On Wed 09-09-20 14:32:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 09.09.20 14:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 11:24:24AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> I am not sure an enum is going to make the existing situation less
> messy. Sure we somehow have to distinguish boot i
Le 09/09/2020 à 12:59, Michal Hocko a écrit :
On Wed 09-09-20 11:21:58, Laurent Dufour wrote:
Le 09/09/2020 à 11:09, Michal Hocko a écrit :
On Wed 09-09-20 09:48:59, Laurent Dufour wrote:
Le 09/09/2020 à 09:40, Michal Hocko a écrit :
[...]
In
that case, the system is able to boot but later h
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 02:32:57PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 09.09.20 14:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 11:24:24AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> I am not sure an enum is going to make the existing situation less
> messy. Sure we somehow have to di
On 09.09.20 14:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 11:24:24AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
I am not sure an enum is going to make the existing situation less
messy. Sure we somehow have to distinguish boot init and runtime hotplug
because they have different co
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 11:24:24AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> I am not sure an enum is going to make the existing situation less
> >> messy. Sure we somehow have to distinguish boot init and runtime hotplug
> >> because they have different constrains. I am arguing that a) we should
> >> h
On Wed 09-09-20 11:21:58, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> Le 09/09/2020 à 11:09, Michal Hocko a écrit :
> > On Wed 09-09-20 09:48:59, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> > > Le 09/09/2020 à 09:40, Michal Hocko a écrit :
[...]
> > > > > In
> > > > > that case, the system is able to boot but later hot-plug operation
>
Le 09/09/2020 à 11:24, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
I am not sure an enum is going to make the existing situation less
messy. Sure we somehow have to distinguish boot init and runtime hotplug
because they have different constrains. I am arguing that a) we should
have a consistent way to check for
>> I am not sure an enum is going to make the existing situation less
>> messy. Sure we somehow have to distinguish boot init and runtime hotplug
>> because they have different constrains. I am arguing that a) we should
>> have a consistent way to check for those and b) we shouldn't blow up
>> easi
Le 09/09/2020 à 11:09, Michal Hocko a écrit :
On Wed 09-09-20 09:48:59, Laurent Dufour wrote:
Le 09/09/2020 à 09:40, Michal Hocko a écrit :
[reposting because the malformed cc list confused my email client]
On Tue 08-09-20 19:08:35, Laurent Dufour wrote:
In register_mem_sect_under_node() the
On Wed 09-09-20 09:48:59, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> Le 09/09/2020 à 09:40, Michal Hocko a écrit :
> > [reposting because the malformed cc list confused my email client]
> >
> > On Tue 08-09-20 19:08:35, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> > > In register_mem_sect_under_node() the system_state’s value is checked
Le 09/09/2020 à 09:40, Michal Hocko a écrit :
[reposting because the malformed cc list confused my email client]
On Tue 08-09-20 19:08:35, Laurent Dufour wrote:
In register_mem_sect_under_node() the system_state’s value is checked to
detect whether the operation the call is made during boot tim
[reposting because the malformed cc list confused my email client]
On Tue 08-09-20 19:08:35, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> In register_mem_sect_under_node() the system_state’s value is checked to
> detect whether the operation the call is made during boot time or during an
> hot-plug operation. Unfortun
30 matches
Mail list logo
