linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: reorder memory-hotplug documentation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20190521160040.GE24470@rapoport-lnx>
Date:   Tue, 21 May 2019 19:00:40 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: reorder memory-hotplug documentation

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:41:50PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 14.05.19 10:23, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > The "Locking Internals" section of the memory-hotplug documentation is
> > duplicated in admin-guide and core-api. Drop the admin-guide copy as
> > locking internals does not belong there.
> > 
> > While on it, move the "Future Work" section to the core-api part.
> 
> Looks sane, but the future work part is really outdated, can we remove
> this completely?
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > +
> > +Future Work
> > +===========
> > +
> > +  - allowing memory hot-add to ZONE_MOVABLE. maybe we need some switch like
> > +    sysctl or new control file.
> 
> ... that already works if I am not completely missing the point here
> 
> > +  - showing memory block and physical device relationship.
> 
> ... that is available for s390x only AFAIK
> 
> > +  - test and make it better memory offlining.
> 
> ... no big news ;)
> 
> > +  - support HugeTLB page migration and offlining.
> 
> ... I remember that Oscar was doing something in that area, Oscar?
> 
> > +  - memmap removing at memory offline.
> 
> ... no, we don't want this. However, we should properly clean up zone
> information when offlining
> 
> > +  - physical remove memory.
> 
> ... I don't even understand what that means.
> 
> 
> I'd vote for removing the future work part, this is pretty outdated.
 
Frankly, I haven't looked at the details, just simply moved the text over.
I don't mind sending another mechanical patch that removes the future work
part.

But it would be far better if somebody who's actively working on memory
hotplug would replace it with a description how this actually works ;-)
 
> -- 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David / dhildenb
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.