On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri 30-06-17 11:09:51, Wei Yang wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> >> > >> >> Michal, >> >> I love the idea very much. >> > > You haven't written your sequence of onlining but if you used the same > one as mentioned in the patch then you should get > memory34/valid_zones:Normal > memory35/valid_zones:Normal Movable > memory36/valid_zones:Normal Movable > memory37/valid_zones:Normal Movable > memory38/valid_zones:Normal Movable > memory39/valid_zones:Normal > memory40/valid_zones:Movable Normal > memory41/valid_zones:Movable Normal > > Even if you kept 37 as movable and offline 38 you wouldn't get 38-41 > movable by default because... > Yes, it depends on the zone range. >> The reason is the same, we don't adjust the zone's range when offline >> memory. > > .. of this. > >> This is also a known issue? > > yes and to be honest I do not plan to fix it unless somebody has a real > life usecase for it. Now that we allow explicit onlininig type anywhere > it seems like a reasonable behavior and this will allow us to remove > quite some code which is always a good deal wrt longterm maintenance. > hmm... the statistics displayed in /proc/zoneinfo would be meaningless for zone_normal and zone_movable. I am not sure, maybe no one care about these fields. > Thanks! > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs -- 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>
