[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51F040E8.1030507@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:02:32 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
CC: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
"olaf@...fle.de" <olaf@...fle.de>,
"apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"kamezawa.hiroyuki@...il.com" <kamezawa.hiroyuki@...il.com>,
"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"yinghan@...gle.com" <yinghan@...gle.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"kay@...y.org" <kay@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Drivers: base: memory: Export symbols for onlining
memory blocks
On 07/24/2013 12:45 PM, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> All I am saying is that I see two classes of failures: (a) Our
> inability to allocate memory to manage the memory that is being hot added
> and (b) Our inability to bring the hot added memory online within a reasonable
> amount of time. I am not sure the cause for (b) and I was just speculating that
> this could be memory related. What is interesting is that I have seen failure related
> to our inability to online the memory after having succeeded in hot adding the
> memory.
I think we should hold off on this patch and other like it until we've
been sufficiently able to explain how (b) happens.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists