lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH part5 0/7] Arrange hotpluggable memory as ZONE_MOVABLE.
From
Date
There are systems which can.  They have the ability to remap in hardware.

KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>(8/14/13 3:55 PM), Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 03:40:31PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>> I don't agree it. Please look at other kernel options. A lot of
>these don't
>>> follow you. These behave as direction, not advise.
>>>
>>> I mean the fallback should be implemented at turning on default the
>feature.
>>
>> Yeah, some options are "please try this" and others "do this or
>fail".
>> There's no frigging fundamental rule there.
>
>In this case, we have zero worth for fallback, right?
>
>
>>> I don't read whole discussion and I don't quite understand why no
>kernel
>>> place controlling is relevant. Every unpluggable node is suitable
>for
>>> kernel. If you mean current kernel placement logic don't care
>plugging,
>>> that's a bug.
>>>
>>> If we aim to hot remove, we have to have either kernel relocation or
>>> hotplug awre kernel placement at boot time.
>>
>> What if all nodes are hot pluggable? Are we moving the kernel
>> dynamically then?
>
>Intel folks already told, we have no such system in practice.
>
>
>>>> Failing to boot is *way* worse reporting mechanism than almost
>>>> everything else. If the sysadmin is willing to risk machines
>failing
>>>> to come up, she would definitely be willing to check whether which
>>>> memory areas are actually hotpluggable too, right?
>>>
>>> No. see above. Your opinion is not pragmatic useful.
>>
>> No, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. There are multiple
>> ways to report when something doesn't work. Failing to boot is *one*
>> of them and not a very good one. Here, for practical reasons, the
>end
>> result may differ depending on the specifics of the configuration, so
>> more detailed reporting is necessary anyway, so why do you insist on
>> failing the boot? In what world is it a good thing for the machine
>to
>> fail boot after bios or kernel update?
>
>Because boot failure have no chance to overlook and better way for
>practice.

--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-14 22:41    [W:0.220 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site