On 22.10.19 11:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 22-10-19 11:17:24, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.10.19 11:14, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 22-10-19 10:32:11, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
E.g., arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c:kvm_is_mmio_pfn()
Thanks for these references. I am not really familiar with kvm
On Tue 22-10-19 11:17:24, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.10.19 11:14, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 22-10-19 10:32:11, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > [...]
> > > E.g., arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c:kvm_is_mmio_pfn()
> >
> > Thanks for these references. I am not really familiar with kvm so I
> > cannot
On 22.10.19 11:14, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 22-10-19 10:32:11, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
E.g., arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c:kvm_is_mmio_pfn()
Thanks for these references. I am not really familiar with kvm so I
cannot really comment on the specific code but I am wondering why
it simply doesn't
On Tue 22-10-19 10:32:11, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> E.g., arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c:kvm_is_mmio_pfn()
Thanks for these references. I am not really familiar with kvm so I
cannot really comment on the specific code but I am wondering why
it simply doesn't check for ZONE_DEVICE explicitly? Also we
On 22.10.19 10:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.10.19 10:21, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 22-10-19 10:15:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.10.19 10:08, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 22-10-19 08:52:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 21.10.19 19:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
Two cleanups that
On 22.10.19 10:21, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 22-10-19 10:15:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 22.10.19 10:08, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 22-10-19 08:52:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 21.10.19 19:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Two cleanups that popped up while working on (and
On Tue 22-10-19 10:15:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.10.19 10:08, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 22-10-19 08:52:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 21.10.19 19:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > Two cleanups that popped up while working on (and discussing)
> > > > virtio-mem:
> > > >
On 22.10.19 10:08, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 22-10-19 08:52:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 21.10.19 19:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
Two cleanups that popped up while working on (and discussing) virtio-mem:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/19/463
Tested with DIMMs on x86.
As discussed with
On Tue 22-10-19 08:52:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 21.10.19 19:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > Two cleanups that popped up while working on (and discussing) virtio-mem:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/19/463
> >
> > Tested with DIMMs on x86.
> >
> > As discussed with michal in v1, I'll
On 21.10.19 19:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
Two cleanups that popped up while working on (and discussing) virtio-mem:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/19/463
Tested with DIMMs on x86.
As discussed with michal in v1, I'll soon look into removing the use
of PG_reserved during memory onlining
Two cleanups that popped up while working on (and discussing) virtio-mem:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/19/463
Tested with DIMMs on x86.
As discussed with michal in v1, I'll soon look into removing the use
of PG_reserved during memory onlining completely - most probably
disallowing to offline
11 matches
Mail list logo
