Now added x86 folks for real :) The thread starts here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230212110305.93670-1-zhengqi.arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 01:44:06PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > (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. > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
