From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f70.google.com (mail-wm0-f70.google.com [74.125.82.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1E56B0279 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 11:52:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f70.google.com with SMTP id b84so11059729wmh.0 for ; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 08:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l19si18923463eda.22.2017.06.01.08.52.35 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Jun 2017 08:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 17:52:31 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memory_hotplug: support movable_node for hotplugable nodes Message-ID: <20170601155204.GB8088@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170601122004.32732-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <820164f3-8bef-7761-0695-88db9e0ce7a7@suse.cz> <20170601142227.GF9091@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170601151935.m5jbfmugocc66qfq@arbab-laptop.localdomain> <20170601153838.GA8088@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170601154746.wjc56eldgyzr2bpm@arbab-laptop.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170601154746.wjc56eldgyzr2bpm@arbab-laptop.localdomain> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Reza Arbab Cc: Vlastimil Babka , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Andrea Arcangeli , Jerome Glisse , Yasuaki Ishimatsu , qiuxishi@huawei.com, Kani Toshimitsu , slaoub@gmail.com, Joonsoo Kim , Andi Kleen , David Rientjes , Daniel Kiper , Igor Mammedov , Vitaly Kuznetsov , LKML On Thu 01-06-17 10:47:46, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 05:38:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Thu 01-06-17 10:19:36, Reza Arbab wrote: > >>The x86 SRAT (or the dt, on other platforms) can describe memory as > >>hotpluggable. See memblock_mark_hotplug(). That's only for memory present at > >>boot, though. > > > >Yes but lose that information after the memblock is gone and numa fully > >initialized. Or can we reconstruct that somehow? > > I'm not sure you'd have to. At boot time, those markings are used to > determine the initial boundaries of ZONE_MOVABLE. So if you removed these > memblocks, then readded them, they would still be in ZONE_MOVABLE. Yes but that already works like that. I am nore interested in the case when the node goes away and it is added again. echo online > ... would result in a non-movable memory and that is the inconsistency I tried to call out in the changelog -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org