On 27.11.18 17:32, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 16:59:14 +0100
> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> On 26.11.18 15:20, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 14:33:29 +0100
>>> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>
On 26.11.18 13:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 16:59:14 +0100
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.11.18 15:20, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 14:33:29 +0100
> > David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >
> >> On 26.11.18 13:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> On 23.11.18 19:06, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> >
>
On 26.11.18 15:20, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 14:33:29 +0100
> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> On 26.11.18 13:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 23.11.18 19:06, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>
If we are going to fake the driver information we may as well add the
type
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 14:33:29 +0100
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.11.18 13:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 23.11.18 19:06, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> >>
> >> If we are going to fake the driver information we may as well add the
> >> type attribute and be done with it.
> >>
> >> I think
On 26.11.18 13:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 23.11.18 19:06, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 12:13:58 +0100
>> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>>> On 28.09.18 17:03, David Hildenbrand wrote:
How to/when to online hotplugged memory is hard to manage for
distributions
On 23.11.18 19:06, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 12:13:58 +0100
> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> On 28.09.18 17:03, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> How to/when to online hotplugged memory is hard to manage for
>>> distributions because different memory types are to be treated
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 12:13:58 +0100
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 28.09.18 17:03, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > How to/when to online hotplugged memory is hard to manage for
> > distributions because different memory types are to be treated differently.
> > Right now, we need complicated udev
On 28.09.18 17:03, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> How to/when to online hotplugged memory is hard to manage for
> distributions because different memory types are to be treated differently.
> Right now, we need complicated udev rules that e.g. check if we are
> running on s390x, on a physical system
On 04/10/2018 19:50, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:45:13 +0200
> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> On 04/10/2018 17:28, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The state of the art is to determine what to do with hotplugged
>>> memory in userspace based on platform and virtualization
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:45:13 +0200
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04/10/2018 17:28, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> >
> > The state of the art is to determine what to do with hotplugged
> > memory in userspace based on platform and virtualization type.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >
> > Changing the default
On 04/10/2018 17:28, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:13:48 +0200
> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> ok, so what is the problem here?
>
> Handling the hotplug in userspace through udev may be suboptimal and
> kernel handling might be faster but that's orthogonal to the problem at
>
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:13:48 +0200
David Hildenbrand wrote:
ok, so what is the problem here?
Handling the hotplug in userspace through udev may be suboptimal and
kernel handling might be faster but that's orthogonal to the problem at
hand.
The state of the art is to determine what to do with
On 04/10/2018 08:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 03-10-18 19:14:05, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 03/10/2018 16:34, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> Dave Hansen writes:
>>>
On 10/03/2018 06:52 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> It is more than just memmaps (e.g. forking udev process doing memory
On 03/10/2018 16:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 03-10-18 15:52:24, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> [...]
>>> As David said some of the memory cannot be onlined without further steps
>>> (e.g. when it is standby as David called it) and then I fail to see how
>>> eBPF help in any way.
>>
>> and also, we
On 01/10/2018 18:24, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> How should a policy in user space look like when new memory gets added
>> - on s390x? Not onlining paravirtualized memory is very wrong.
>
> Because we're going to balloon it away in a moment anyway?
No, rether somebody wanted this VM to have more
On 04/10/2018 08:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 03-10-18 19:00:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [...]
>> Let me rephrase: You state that user space has to make the decision and
>> that user should be able to set/reconfigure rules. That is perfectly fine.
>>
>> But then we should give user space
On Wed 03-10-18 19:00:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> Let me rephrase: You state that user space has to make the decision and
> that user should be able to set/reconfigure rules. That is perfectly fine.
>
> But then we should give user space access to sufficient information to
> make a
On Wed 03-10-18 19:14:05, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03/10/2018 16:34, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > Dave Hansen writes:
> >
> >> On 10/03/2018 06:52 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >>> It is more than just memmaps (e.g. forking udev process doing memory
> >>> onlining also needs memory) but yes,
On 03/10/2018 16:34, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Dave Hansen writes:
>
>> On 10/03/2018 06:52 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> It is more than just memmaps (e.g. forking udev process doing memory
>>> onlining also needs memory) but yes, the main idea is to make the
>>> onlining synchronous with
On 03/10/2018 16:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 03-10-18 15:52:24, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> [...]
>>> As David said some of the memory cannot be onlined without further steps
>>> (e.g. when it is standby as David called it) and then I fail to see how
>>> eBPF help in any way.
>>
>> and also, we
On 03/10/2018 15:54, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 02-10-18 17:25:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 02/10/2018 15:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> Zone imbalance is an inherent problem of the highmem zone. It is
>>> essentially the highmem zone we all loved so much back in 32b days.
>>> Yes the
Dave Hansen writes:
> On 10/03/2018 06:52 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> It is more than just memmaps (e.g. forking udev process doing memory
>> onlining also needs memory) but yes, the main idea is to make the
>> onlining synchronous with hotplug.
>
> That's a good theoretical concern.
>
> But,
On Wed 03-10-18 15:52:24, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
[...]
> > As David said some of the memory cannot be onlined without further steps
> > (e.g. when it is standby as David called it) and then I fail to see how
> > eBPF help in any way.
>
> and also, we can fight till the end of days here trying to
On 10/03/2018 06:52 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> It is more than just memmaps (e.g. forking udev process doing memory
> onlining also needs memory) but yes, the main idea is to make the
> onlining synchronous with hotplug.
That's a good theoretical concern.
But, is it a problem we need to solve
On Tue 02-10-18 17:25:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 02/10/2018 15:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > Zone imbalance is an inherent problem of the highmem zone. It is
> > essentially the highmem zone we all loved so much back in 32b days.
> > Yes the movable zone doesn't have any addressing
Michal Hocko writes:
> On Wed 03-10-18 15:38:04, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> David Hildenbrand writes:
>>
>> > On 02/10/2018 15:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> Why do you need a generic hotplug rule in the first place? Why don't you
>> >> simply provide different set of rules for
On Wed 03-10-18 15:38:04, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> David Hildenbrand writes:
>
> > On 02/10/2018 15:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
> ...
> >>
> >> Why do you need a generic hotplug rule in the first place? Why don't you
> >> simply provide different set of rules for different usecases? Let users
> >>
David Hildenbrand writes:
> On 02/10/2018 15:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
...
>>
>> Why do you need a generic hotplug rule in the first place? Why don't you
>> simply provide different set of rules for different usecases? Let users
>> decide which usecase they prefer rather than try to be clever
On 02/10/2018 15:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 01-10-18 11:34:25, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 01/10/2018 10:40, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Fri 28-09-18 17:03:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I haven't read the patch itself but I just wanted to note one thing
>>> about this part
On Mon 01-10-18 11:34:25, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 01/10/2018 10:40, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 28-09-18 17:03:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > I haven't read the patch itself but I just wanted to note one thing
> > about this part
> >
> >> For paravirtualized devices it
> How should a policy in user space look like when new memory gets added
> - on s390x? Not onlining paravirtualized memory is very wrong.
Because we're going to balloon it away in a moment anyway?
We have auto-onlining. Why isn't that being used on s390?
> So the type of memory is very
On 01/10/2018 10:40, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 28-09-18 17:03:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [...]
>
> I haven't read the patch itself but I just wanted to note one thing
> about this part
>
>> For paravirtualized devices it is relevant that memory is onlined as
>> quickly as possible after
On 28/09/2018 19:02, Dave Hansen wrote:
> It's really nice if these kinds of things are broken up. First, replace
> the old want_memblock parameter, then add the parameter to the
> __add_page() calls.
Definitely, once we agree that is is not nuts, I will split it up for
the next version :)
>
On Fri 28-09-18 17:03:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
I haven't read the patch itself but I just wanted to note one thing
about this part
> For paravirtualized devices it is relevant that memory is onlined as
> quickly as possible after adding - and that it is added to the NORMAL
> zone.
It's really nice if these kinds of things are broken up. First, replace
the old want_memblock parameter, then add the parameter to the
__add_page() calls.
> +/*
> + * NONE: No memory block is to be created (e.g. device memory).
> + * NORMAL: Memory block that represents normal (boot or
How to/when to online hotplugged memory is hard to manage for
distributions because different memory types are to be treated differently.
Right now, we need complicated udev rules that e.g. check if we are
running on s390x, on a physical system or on a virtualized system. But
there is also
36 matches
Mail list logo
