On Mon 23-10-17 10:35:44, Sharath Kumar Bhat wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 07:20:08PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 23-10-17 10:14:35, Sharath Kumar Bhat wrote: > > [...] > > > This lets admin to configure the kernel to have movable memory > size of > > > hotpluggable memories and at the same time hotpluggable nodes have only > > > movable memory. > > > > Put aside that I believe that having too much of movable memory is > > dangerous and people are not very prepared for that fact, what is the > > specific usecase. Allowing users something is nice but as I've said the > > interface is ugly already and putting more on top is not very desirable. > > > > > This is useful because it lets user to have more movable > > > memory in the system that can be offlined/onlined. When the same hardware > > > is shared between two OS's then this helps to dynamically provision the > > > physical memory between them by offlining/onlining as and when the > > > application/user need changes. > > > > just use hotplugable memory for that purpose. The latest memory hotplug > > code allows you to online memory into a kernel or movable zone as per > > admin policy without the previously hardcoded zone ordering. So I really > > fail to see why to mock with the command line parameter at all. > > Yes, but it won't let us offline the memory blocks if they are already > in use by kernel allocations. This is more likely over a long period of > uptime. The command-line ensures that the memory blocks are movable all > the time as reserved by the admin from the boot. I am really confused about your usecase then. Why do you want to make non-hotplugable memory to be movable then? -- 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>
