[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 0/5] Add movablecore_map boot option
2013/01/18 5:28, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> On 1/17/2013 11:30 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>>> 2. If the user *does* care which nodes are movable, then the user needs
>>> to be able to specify that *in a way that makes sense to the user*.
>>> This may mean involving the DMI information as well as SRAT in order to
>>> get "silk screen" type information out.
>> One reason they might care would be which I/O devices are connected
>> to each node. DMI might be a good way to get an invariant name for the
>> node, but they might also want to specify in terms of what they actually
>> want. E.g. "eth0 and eth4 are a redundant bonded pair of NICs - don't
>> mark both these nodes as removable". Though this is almost certainly not
>> a job for kernel options, but for some user configuration tool that would
>> spit out the DMI names.
> I agree DMI parsing should be done in userland if we really need DMI parsing.

If users use the boot parameter for bugs or debugging, users need
a method which sets in detail range of movable memory. So specifying
node number is not enough because whole memory becomes movable memory.

For this, we are discussing other ways, memory range and DMI information.
By using DMI information, users may get an invariant name. But is it
really user friendly interface? I don't think so.

You will think using memory range is not user friendly interface too.
But I think that using memory range is friendlier than using DMI
information since we can get easily memory range. So from developper
side, using memory range is good.

Of course, using SRAT information is necessary solution. So we are
developing it now.

Yasuaki Ishimatsu

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-18 07:41    [W:0.077 / U:1.884 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site