On Thu 29-08-19 09:00:08, David Hildenbrand wrote: > This is the successor of "[PATCH v2 0/6] mm/memory_hotplug: Consider all > zones when removing memory". I decided to go one step further and finally > factor out the shrinking of zones from memory removal code. Zones are now > fixed up when offlining memory/onlining of memory fails/before removing > ZONE_DEVICE memory. I was about to say Yay! but then reading... > Example: > > :/# cat /proc/zoneinfo > Node 1, zone Movable > spanned 0 > present 0 > managed 0 > :/# echo "online_movable" > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory41/state > :/# echo "online_movable" > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory43/state > :/# cat /proc/zoneinfo > Node 1, zone Movable > spanned 98304 > present 65536 > managed 65536 > :/# echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory43/online > :/# cat /proc/zoneinfo > Node 1, zone Movable > spanned 32768 > present 32768 > managed 32768 > :/# echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory41/online > :/# cat /proc/zoneinfo > Node 1, zone Movable > spanned 0 > present 0 > managed 0 ... this made me realize that you are trying to fix it instead. Could you explain why do we want to do that? Why don't we simply remove all that crap? Why do we even care about zone boundaries when offlining or removing memory? Zone shrinking was mostly necessary with the previous onlining semantic when the zone type could be only changed on the boundary or unassociated memory. We can interleave memory zones now arbitrarily. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
