Hello guys, On 10/10/2013 07:26 AM, Zhang Yanfei wrote: > Hello Peter, > > On 10/10/2013 07:10 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 10/09/2013 02:45 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote: >>>> >>>> I would also argue that in the VM scenario -- and arguable even in the >>>> hardware scenario -- the right thing is to not expose the flexible >>>> memory in the e820/EFI tables, and instead have it hotadded (possibly >>>> *immediately* so) on boot. This avoids both the boot time funnies as >>>> well as the scaling issues with metadata. >>>> >>> >>> So in this kind of scenario, hotpluggable memory will not be detected >>> at boot time, and admin should not use this movable_node boot option >>> and the kernel will act as before, using top-down allocation always. >>> >> >> Yes. The idea is that the kernel will boot up without the hotplug >> memory, but if desired, will immediately see a hotplug-add event for the >> movable memory. > > Yeah, this is good. > > But in the scenario that boot with hotplug memory, we need the movable_node > option. So as tejun has explained a lot about this patchset, do you still > have objection to it or could I ask andrew to merge it into -mm tree for > more tests? > Since tejun has explained a lot about this approach, could we come to an agreement on this one? Peter? If you have no objection, I'll post a new v7 version which will fix the __pa_symbol problem pointed by you. -- Thanks. Zhang Yanfei -- 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>