On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 15:52:56 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed 02-01-19 12:21:10, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > [...] > > So ideally I'd love this set to head in a direction that helps me tick off > > at least some of the above usecases and hopefully have some visibility on > > how to address the others moving forwards, > > Is it sufficient to have such a memory marked as movable (aka only have > ZONE_MOVABLE)? That should rule out most of the kernel allocations and > it fits the "balance by migration" concept. Yes, to some degree. That's exactly what we are doing, though a things currently stand I think you have to turn it on via a kernel command line and mark it hotpluggable in ACPI. Given it my or may not actually be hotpluggable that's less than elegant. Let's randomly decide not to explore that one further for a few more weeks. la la la la If we have general balancing by migration then things are definitely heading in a useful direction as long as 'hot' takes into account the main user not being a CPU. You are right that migration dealing with the movable kernel allocations is a nice side effect though which I hadn't thought about. Long run we might end up with everything where it should be after some level of burn in period. A generic version of this proposal is looking nicer and nicer! Thanks, Jonathan
