[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+CK2bDG8xNAgn++8uTOP9OsuEzynm=-Gkb+oUj9DKB8sEudiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:43:33 -0400
From: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leonardo@...ux.ibm.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Pasha Tatashin <Pavel.Tatashin@...rosoft.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/memory_hotplug: Adds option to hot-add memory in ZONE_MOVABLE
> > Just trying to understand, if kernel parameters is the preferable
> > method, why do we even have
> >
> > MEMORY_HOTPLUG_DEFAULT_ONLINE
>
> I have some opinion on this one TBH. I have even tried to remove it. The
> config option has been added to workaround hotplug issues for some
> memory balloning usecases where it was believed that the memory consumed
> for the memory hotadd (struct pages) could get machine to OOM before
> userspace manages to online it. So I would be more than happy to remove
> it but there were some objections in the past. Maybe the work by Oscar
> to allocate memmaps from the hotplugged memory can finally put an end to
> this gross hack.
Makes sense, thank you for the background info.
Pasha
Powered by blists - more mailing lists