lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1] memory-hotplug.rst: complete admin-guide overhaul
Date

Looks like a was too fast with my resend ;)

>>>> -Phases of memory hotplug
>>>> +Further, the basic memory hot(un)plug infrastructure in Linux is nowadays
>>>> +also used to expose PMEM, other performance-differentiated
>>>
>>> ^ persistent memory (PMEM)
>>>
>
> Just in case you've missed this one ^ ;-)

I did catch that :)

[...]

>>
>> "If it fails, an error will be returned by the kernel via the systemcall
>> that triggered modifying of the respective file."
>
> I also think that write(2) to /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/online
> will fail. But the inner workings of system call, its return value and the
> ERRNO are probably not very interesting to a person that did
>
> echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/online
>
> Maybe something like
>
> If it fails, the state of the memory block will remain unchanged and the
> above command will fail.

Thanks, I'll use that.

>
> And maybe an example of how echo reports some unrelated error message :)
>
>>>> +Observing the State of Memory Blocks
>
> ...
>
>>>> -Now, a boot option for making a memory block which consists of migratable pages
>>>> -is supported. By specifying "kernelcore=" or "movablecore=" boot option, you can
>>>> -create ZONE_MOVABLE...a zone which is just used for movable pages.
>>>> -(See also Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst)
>>>> + For online memory blocks, ``DMA``, ``DMA32``, ``Normal``,
>>>> + ``Movable`` and ``none`` may be returned. ``none`` indicates
>>>
>>> Highmem? Or we don't support hotplug on 32 bits?
>>
>> We only support 64 bit:
>>
>> config MEMORY_HOTPLUG
>> ...
>> depends on 64BIT || BROKEN
>>
>> Worth a comment in the document "Introduction":
>>
>> "Linux only supports memory hot(un)plug on selected 64 bit architectures,
>> such as x86_64, aarch64, ppc64, s390x and ia64."
>
> ^ arm64 ?

I think aarch64 is historically actually the right(tm) thing to use in
general ... but nowadays it doesn't matter anymore. It's "arch/arm64"
... the inconsistency is real. (interesting read:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31851611/differences-between-arm64-and-aarch64)

But it's the same mess as using x86 vs. x86_64 vs. x64 vs. AMD64 for the
64 bit extension of IA-32.

So I'll convert that to arm64.

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-08 17:23    [W:0.133 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site