On 29.01.19 09:43, Oscar Salvador wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 09:53:35AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > Hi David, > >> I only had a quick glimpse. I would prefer if the caller of add_memory() >> can specify whether it would be ok to allocate vmmap from the range. >> This e.g. allows ACPI dimm code to allocate from the range, however >> other machanisms (XEN, hyper-v, virtio-mem) can allow it once they >> actually support it. > > Well, I think this can be done, and it might make more sense, as we > would get rid of some other flags to prevent allocating vmemmap > besides mhp_restrictions. Maybe we can also start passing a struct to add_memory() to describe such properties. This would avoid having to change all the layers over and over again. We would just have to establish some rules to avoid breaking stuff. E.g. the struct always has to be initialized to 0 so new features won't break any caller not wanting to make use of that. E.g. memory block types (or if we come up with something better) would also have to add new parameters to add_memory() and friends. > >> >> Also, while s390x standby memory cannot support allocating from the >> range, virtio-mem could easily support it on s390x. >> >> Not sure how such an interface could look like, but I would really like >> to have control over that on the add_memory() interface, not per arch. > > Let me try it out and will report back. > > Btw, since you are a virt-guy, would it be do feasible for you to test the patchset > on hyper-v, xen or your virtio-mem driver? I don't have a XEN or Hyper-V installation myself. cc-ing Vitaly, maybe he has time end resources to test on Hyper-V. I'll be reworking my virtio-mem prototype soon and try with this patchset than! But this could take a little bit longer as I have tons of other stuff on my plate :) So don't worry about virtio-mem too much for now. > > Thanks David! > -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
