On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > I didn't get to look through the patch series yet and I might not be > able before LSF/MM. How urgent is this? I am primarily asking because > the memory hotplug is really convoluted right now and putting more on > top doesn't really sound like the thing we really want. I have tried to > simplify the code [1] already but this is an early stage work so I do > not want to impose any burden on you. So I am wondering whether this > is something that needs to be merged very soon or it can wait for the > rework and hopefully end up being much simpler in the end as well. > > What do you think? In general, I think it's better to add new features after reworks/cleanup, but it's not clear to me (yet) that the problem you are trying to solve makes this sub-section enabling for ZONE_DEVICE any simpler. > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170315091347.GA32626@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ZONE_DEVICE pages are never "online". The patch says "Instead we do page->zone association from move_pfn_range which is called from online_pages." which means the new scheme currently doesn't comprehend the sprinkled ZONE_DEVICE hacks in the memory hotplug code. However, that said, I might take a look at whether the hacks belong in the auto-online code so that we can share the delayed zone initialization, but still skip marking the memory online per the expectations of ZONE_DEVICE. I expect it would be confusing to have memblock devices in sysfs for ranges that can't be marked online? Thoughts? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
