From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264501AbTLCFTX (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:19:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264502AbTLCFTX (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:19:23 -0500 Received: from fmr05.intel.com ([134.134.136.6]:9912 "EHLO hermes.jf.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264501AbTLCFTW convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:19:22 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 Subject: RE: memory hotremove prototype, take 3 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:19:02 -0800 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: memory hotremove prototype, take 3 Thread-Index: AcO5OVp9zk1fsPFaQmak6sj8vKu9eQAI1Gyg From: "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" To: "Yasunori Goto" , "Pavel Machek" Cc: , "Luck, Tony" , "IWAMOTO Toshihiro" , "Hirokazu Takahashi" , "Linux Hotplug Memory Support" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2003 05:19:03.0443 (UTC) FILETIME=[F758D630:01C3B95C] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > From: Yasunori Goto > IMHO, To hot-remove memory, memory attribute should be divided > into Hotpluggable and no-Hotpluggable, and each attribute memory > should be allocated each unit(ex. node). Why? I still don't get that -- we should be able to use the virtual addressing mechanism of any CPU to swap under the rug any virtual address without needing to do anything more than allocate a page frame for the new physical location (I am ignoring here devices that are directly accessing physical memory--a callback in the device model could be added to require them to reallocate their buffers). Or am I deadly and naively wrong? Iñaky Pérez-González -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own (and my fault)