[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <621dd76a8e0b449db66ba2c3ad20fb2c743a1f1b.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 04:18:32 -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
Hello Bharata, thanks for this feedback!
On Wed, 2020-03-04 at 10:13 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried this a few years back
> (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/800142/) and didn't pursue it
> further because at that time, it was felt that the approach might not
> work for PowerVM guests, because all the present memory except RMA
> gets marked as hot-pluggable by PowerVM. This discussion is not
> present in the above thread, but during my private discussions with
> Reza and Nathan, it was noted that making all that memory as MOVABLE
> is not preferable for PowerVM guests as we might run out of memory for
> kernel allocations.
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.
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.
What are your thoughts on that?
Best regards,
Leonardo Bras
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists