Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: [Lhms-devel] RE: memory hotremove prototype, take 3 | Date | Thu, 4 Dec 2003 02:37:10 -0800 | From | "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <> |
| |
> From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel@suse.cz]
> > I still think we could use the CPU's virtualization mechanism--of course, > > and as you and Tony Luck mention, we'd had to track down and modify the > > parts that assume physical memory et al. That they use large pages > > or > > ...which means basically auditing whole kernel, and rewriting half of > drivers. Good luck with _that_.
Bingo...just the perfect excuse I need to give to my manager to keep a low profile while tinkering around for a long time :)
Okay, so I will play a wee bit more the devil's advocate as an exercise of futility, if you don't mind. Just trying to compile a (possibly incomplete) quick list of what would be needed, can you guys help me? you know way more than I do:
1) the core kernel needs to be independent of physical memory position 1.1) same with drivers/subsystems 1.2) filesystems [it cannot be really incomplete because I have added all the code :/]
Oh well, forget it, that's more than enough. Another project for the stack of interesting things to work on.
Thanks to all
Iñaky Pérez-González -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own (and my fault) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |