[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a93a42c672171ed93557f9f9f3b5d64013980f26.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 19:05:43 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leonardo@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@...il.com>
Cc: ndfont@...il.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
arbab@...ux.ibm.com, Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Roth <mdroth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] powerpc/kernel: Enables memory hot-remove after
reboot on pseries guests
On Wed, 2020-03-04 at 04:18 -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> Humm, this makes sense.
> But with mu change, these pieces of memory only get into ZONE_MOVABLE
> if the boot parameter 'movable_node' gets passed to guest kernel.
Humm, I think your patch also does that.
> So, even if we are unable to sort out some flag combination that work
> fine for both use-cases, if PowerVM don't pass 'movable_node' as boot
> parameter to kernel, it will behave just as today.
Also, another option would be adding a new 'removable' flag, given it
has a lot of free bytes. It would only be passed by qemu, so we would
be safe with PowerVM.
Then we would have
+ if(lmb->flags & DRCONF_MEM_REMOVABLE)
+ early_init_dt_mark_hotplug_memory_arch(base, size);
Do you know if it's possible?
We would need to update the LOPAPR?
Leonardo
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists