(added x86 folks) On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:29:42PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 14.02.23 12:26, Qi Zheng wrote: > > On 2023/2/14 19:22, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > > > TBH, this is the first time I hear of NODE_MIN_SIZE and it seems to be a > > > pretty x86 specific thing. > > > > > > Are we sure we want to get NODE_MIN_SIZE involved? > > > > Maybe add an arch_xxx() to handle it? > > I still haven't figured out what we want to achieve with NODE_MIN_SIZE at > all. It smells like an arch-specific hack looking at > > "Don't confuse VM with a node that doesn't have the minimum amount of > memory" > > Why shouldn't mm-core deal with that? Well, a node with <4M RAM is not very useful and bears all the overhead of an extra live node. But, hey, why won't we just drop that '< NODE_MIN_SIZE' and let people with weird HW configurations just live with this? > I'd appreciate an explanation of the bigger picture, what the issue is and > what the approach to solve it is (including memory onlining/offlining). > > -- > Thanks, > > David / dhildenb > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
