Hi Anshuman, David,
Thanks for all the detailed explanations for the reasoning to have
bootmem protected from being removed. Also, I do agree drivers being
able to mark memory sections isn't the right thing to do.
We went ahead with the approach of using "mem=" as you suggested to
limit t
On 10/17/2020 03:05 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 17.10.20 01:11, Sudarshan Rajagopalan wrote:
>>
>> Hello Anshuman,
>>
> David here,
>
> in general, if your driver offlines+removes random memory, it is doing
> something *very* wrong and dangerous. You shouldn't ever be
> offlining+removing
Hello Sudarshan,
On 10/17/2020 04:41 AM, Sudarshan Rajagopalan wrote:
>
> Hello Anshuman,
>
> In the patch that enables memory hot-remove (commit bbd6ec605c0f ("arm64/mm:
> Enable memory hot remove")) for arm64, there’s a notifier put in place that
> prevents boot memory from being offlined an
On 17.10.20 01:11, Sudarshan Rajagopalan wrote:
>
> Hello Anshuman,
>
David here,
in general, if your driver offlines+removes random memory, it is doing
something *very* wrong and dangerous. You shouldn't ever be
offlining+removing memory unless
a) you own that boot memory after boot. E.g., the
Hello Anshuman,
In the patch that enables memory hot-remove (commit bbd6ec605c0f
("arm64/mm: Enable memory hot remove")) for arm64, there’s a notifier
put in place that prevents boot memory from being offlined and removed.
Also commit text mentions that boot memory on arm64 cannot be removed
5 matches
Mail list logo
