On Wed 18-07-18 15:47:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> So would you agree to change the comment in page-flags.h to something like
>
> "PG_reserved is set for special pages, that should never be touched
> (read/written). Some of them might not even exist."
Yes. Except you should mention that
On Wed 18-07-18 15:47:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> So would you agree to change the comment in page-flags.h to something like
>
> "PG_reserved is set for special pages, that should never be touched
> (read/written). Some of them might not even exist."
Yes. Except you should mention that
On 18.07.2018 15:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 18-07-18 15:39:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 18.07.2018 15:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> [got back to this really late. Sorry about that]
>>>
>>> On Thu 24-05-18 23:07:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
On 18.07.2018 15:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 18-07-18 15:39:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 18.07.2018 15:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> [got back to this really late. Sorry about that]
>>>
>>> On Thu 24-05-18 23:07:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 18-07-18 15:39:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 18.07.2018 15:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [got back to this really late. Sorry about that]
> >
> > On Thu 24-05-18 23:07:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> I will go over the rest of the email
On Wed 18-07-18 15:39:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 18.07.2018 15:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [got back to this really late. Sorry about that]
> >
> > On Thu 24-05-18 23:07:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> I will go over the rest of the email
On 18.07.2018 15:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [got back to this really late. Sorry about that]
>
> On Thu 24-05-18 23:07:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
>>> point clear because I
On 18.07.2018 15:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [got back to this really late. Sorry about that]
>
> On Thu 24-05-18 23:07:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
>>> point clear because I
[got back to this really late. Sorry about that]
On Thu 24-05-18 23:07:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
> > point clear because I suspect we are talking past each other.
>
> It sounds
[got back to this really late. Sorry about that]
On Thu 24-05-18 23:07:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
> > point clear because I suspect we are talking past each other.
>
> It sounds
On Wed 18-07-18 11:56:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 16.07.2018 22:05, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 16-07-18 21:48:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 11.06.2018 14:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> On 11.06.2018 13:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 11-06-18 13:53:49, David Hildenbrand
On Wed 18-07-18 11:56:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 16.07.2018 22:05, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 16-07-18 21:48:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 11.06.2018 14:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> On 11.06.2018 13:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 11-06-18 13:53:49, David Hildenbrand
On 16.07.2018 22:05, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-07-18 21:48:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 11.06.2018 14:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 11.06.2018 13:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 11-06-18 13:53:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 23:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 16.07.2018 22:05, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-07-18 21:48:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 11.06.2018 14:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 11.06.2018 13:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 11-06-18 13:53:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 23:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On Mon 16-07-18 21:48:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 11.06.2018 14:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 11.06.2018 13:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Mon 11-06-18 13:53:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> On 24.05.2018 23:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko
On Mon 16-07-18 21:48:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 11.06.2018 14:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 11.06.2018 13:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Mon 11-06-18 13:53:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> On 24.05.2018 23:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko
On 11.06.2018 14:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 11.06.2018 13:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Mon 11-06-18 13:53:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 24.05.2018 23:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I will go over the rest of the email later I just
On 11.06.2018 14:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 11.06.2018 13:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Mon 11-06-18 13:53:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 24.05.2018 23:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I will go over the rest of the email later I just
On 11.06.2018 13:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 11-06-18 13:53:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.05.2018 23:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
point clear because I suspect
On 11.06.2018 13:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 11-06-18 13:53:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.05.2018 23:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
point clear because I suspect
On Mon 11-06-18 13:53:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 23:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
> >> point clear because I suspect we are talking past each other.
> >
> > It
On Mon 11-06-18 13:53:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 23:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
> >> point clear because I suspect we are talking past each other.
> >
> > It
On 24.05.2018 23:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
>> point clear because I suspect we are talking past each other.
>
> It sounds like we are now talking about how to solve the problem.
On 24.05.2018 23:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
>> point clear because I suspect we are talking past each other.
>
> It sounds like we are now talking about how to solve the problem.
On 28.05.2018 10:28, Dave Young wrote:
> On 05/24/18 at 11:14am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.05.2018 10:56, Dave Young wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> [snip]
>
>> For kdump and onlining/offlining code, we
>> have to mark pages as offline before a new segment is visible to the
>>
On 28.05.2018 10:28, Dave Young wrote:
> On 05/24/18 at 11:14am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.05.2018 10:56, Dave Young wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> [snip]
>
>> For kdump and onlining/offlining code, we
>> have to mark pages as offline before a new segment is visible to the
>>
On 05/24/18 at 11:14am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 10:56, Dave Young wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > [snip]
> >>>
> For kdump and onlining/offlining code, we
> have to mark pages as offline before a new segment is visible to the
> system
> (e.g. as these pages might not
On 05/24/18 at 11:14am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 10:56, Dave Young wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > [snip]
> >>>
> For kdump and onlining/offlining code, we
> have to mark pages as offline before a new segment is visible to the
> system
> (e.g. as these pages might not
>> So, no, virtio-mem is not a balloon driver :)
> [...]
1. "hotplug should simply not depend on kdump at all"
In theory yes. In the current state we already have to trigger kdump to
reload whenever we add/remove a memory block.
>>>
>>> More details please.
>>
>> I just had
>> So, no, virtio-mem is not a balloon driver :)
> [...]
1. "hotplug should simply not depend on kdump at all"
In theory yes. In the current state we already have to trigger kdump to
reload whenever we add/remove a memory block.
>>>
>>> More details please.
>>
>> I just had
On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
> point clear because I suspect we are talking past each other.
It sounds like we are now talking about how to solve the problem. I like
that :)
>
> On Thu 24-05-18 16:04:38, David
On 24.05.2018 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
> point clear because I suspect we are talking past each other.
It sounds like we are now talking about how to solve the problem. I like
that :)
>
> On Thu 24-05-18 16:04:38, David
I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
point clear because I suspect we are talking past each other.
On Thu 24-05-18 16:04:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> The point I was making is: I cannot allocate 8MB/128MB using the buddy
> allocator. All I want to do is
I will go over the rest of the email later I just wanted to make this
point clear because I suspect we are talking past each other.
On Thu 24-05-18 16:04:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> The point I was making is: I cannot allocate 8MB/128MB using the buddy
> allocator. All I want to do is
>> You exactly describe what has been the case for way too long. But this
>> is only the tip of the ice berg. Simply adding all memory to
>> ZONE_MOVABLE is not going to work (we create an imbalance - e.g. page
>> tables have to go into ZONE_NORMAL. this imbalance will have to be
>> managed later
>> You exactly describe what has been the case for way too long. But this
>> is only the tip of the ice berg. Simply adding all memory to
>> ZONE_MOVABLE is not going to work (we create an imbalance - e.g. page
>> tables have to go into ZONE_NORMAL. this imbalance will have to be
>> managed later
On Thu 24-05-18 12:45:50, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 11:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 24-05-18 10:31:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> >> Allowing to unplug such small chunks is actually the interesting thing.
> >
> > Not really. The vmemmap will stay behind and so you are
On Thu 24-05-18 12:45:50, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 11:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 24-05-18 10:31:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> >> Allowing to unplug such small chunks is actually the interesting thing.
> >
> > Not really. The vmemmap will stay behind and so you are
On 24.05.2018 11:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 24-05-18 10:31:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.05.2018 09:53, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> I've had some questions before and I am not sure they are fully covered.
>>> At least not in the cover letter (I didn't get much further yet) which
>>>
On 24.05.2018 11:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 24-05-18 10:31:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.05.2018 09:53, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> I've had some questions before and I am not sure they are fully covered.
>>> At least not in the cover letter (I didn't get much further yet) which
>>>
On Thu 24-05-18 10:31:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 09:53, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I've had some questions before and I am not sure they are fully covered.
> > At least not in the cover letter (I didn't get much further yet) which
> > should give us a highlevel overview of the
On Thu 24-05-18 10:31:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.05.2018 09:53, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I've had some questions before and I am not sure they are fully covered.
> > At least not in the cover letter (I didn't get much further yet) which
> > should give us a highlevel overview of the
On 24.05.2018 10:56, Dave Young wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [snip]
>>>
For kdump and onlining/offlining code, we
have to mark pages as offline before a new segment is visible to the system
(e.g. as these pages might not be backed by real memory in the hypervisor).
>>>
>>> Please expand on the
On 24.05.2018 10:56, Dave Young wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [snip]
>>>
For kdump and onlining/offlining code, we
have to mark pages as offline before a new segment is visible to the system
(e.g. as these pages might not be backed by real memory in the hypervisor).
>>>
>>> Please expand on the
Hi,
[snip]
> >
> >> For kdump and onlining/offlining code, we
> >> have to mark pages as offline before a new segment is visible to the system
> >> (e.g. as these pages might not be backed by real memory in the hypervisor).
> >
> > Please expand on the kdump part. That is really confusing
Hi,
[snip]
> >
> >> For kdump and onlining/offlining code, we
> >> have to mark pages as offline before a new segment is visible to the system
> >> (e.g. as these pages might not be backed by real memory in the hypervisor).
> >
> > Please expand on the kdump part. That is really confusing
On 24.05.2018 09:53, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I've had some questions before and I am not sure they are fully covered.
> At least not in the cover letter (I didn't get much further yet) which
> should give us a highlevel overview of the feature.
Sure, I can give you more details. Adding all details
On 24.05.2018 09:53, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I've had some questions before and I am not sure they are fully covered.
> At least not in the cover letter (I didn't get much further yet) which
> should give us a highlevel overview of the feature.
Sure, I can give you more details. Adding all details
I've had some questions before and I am not sure they are fully covered.
At least not in the cover letter (I didn't get much further yet) which
should give us a highlevel overview of the feature.
On Wed 23-05-18 17:11:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> This is now the !RFC version. I did some
I've had some questions before and I am not sure they are fully covered.
At least not in the cover letter (I didn't get much further yet) which
should give us a highlevel overview of the feature.
On Wed 23-05-18 17:11:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> This is now the !RFC version. I did some
This is now the !RFC version. I did some additional tests and inspected
all memory notifiers. At least page_ext and kasan need fixes.
==
I am right now working on a paravirtualized memory device ("virtio-mem").
These devices control a memory region and the amount of memory available
via
This is now the !RFC version. I did some additional tests and inspected
all memory notifiers. At least page_ext and kasan need fixes.
==
I am right now working on a paravirtualized memory device ("virtio-mem").
These devices control a memory region and the amount of memory available
via
52 matches
Mail list logo
