On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:31:33 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/14/2013 01:15 AM, Tang Chen wrote: > > > > For now, users can disable this functionality by not specifying the boot option. > > Later, we will post SRAT support, and add another option value "movablecore_map=acpi" > > to using SRAT. > > > > I still think the option "movablecore_map" is uglier than hell. "core" > could just as easily refer to CPU cores there, but it is a memory mem. > "movablemem" seems more appropriate. > > Again, without SRAT I consider this patchset to be largely useless for > anything other than prototyping work. > hm, why. Obviously SRAT support will improve things, but is it actually unusable/unuseful with the command line configuration? Also, "But even if we can use SRAT, users still need an interface to enable/disable this functionality if they don't want to loose their NUMA performance. So I think, an user interface is always needed." There's also the matter of other architectures. Has any thought been given to how (eg) powerpc would hook into here? And what about VMs (xen, KVM)? I wonder if there is a case for those to implement memory hotplug. -- 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>