[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190725101322.GA16385@linux>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:13:27 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm,memory_hotplug: Introduce MHP_VMEMMAP_FLAGS
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:04:08PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> As I said somewhere already (as far as I recall), one mode would be
> sufficient. If you want per memblock, add the memory in memblock
> granularity.
>
> So having a MHP_MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY that allocates it in one chunk would be
> sufficient for the current use cases (DIMMs, Hyper-V).
>
> MHP_MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY: Allocate the memmap for the added memory in one
> chunk from the beginning of the added memory. This piece of memory will
> be accessed and used even before the memory is onlined.
This is what I had in my early versions of the patchset, but I do remember
that Michal suggested to let the caller specify if it wants the memmaps
to be allocated per memblock, or per whole-range.
I still think it makes somse sense, you can just pass a large chunk
(spanning multiple memory-blocks) at once and yet specify to allocate
it per memory-blocks.
Of course, I also agree that having only one mode would ease things
(not that much as v3 does not suppose that difference wrt. range vs
memory-block).
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists