![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > My own target is NUMA node hotplug, what NUMA node hotplug want is > - [remove the range of memory] For this approach, admin should define > *core* node and removable node. Memory on removable node is removable. > Dividing area into removable and not-removable is needed, because > we cannot allocate any kernel's object on removable area. > Removable area should be 100% removable. Customer can know the limitation > before using. that's a perfectly fine method, and is quite similar to the 'separate zone' approach Nick mentioned too. It is also easily understandable for users/customers. under such an approach, things become easier as well: if you have zones you can to restrict (no kernel pinned-down allocations, no mlock-ed pages, etc.), there's no need for any 'fragmentation avoidance' patches! Basically all of that RAM becomes instantly removable (with some small complications). That's the beauty of the separate-zones approach. It is also a limitation: no kernel allocations, so all the highmem-alike restrictions apply to it too. but what is a dangerous fallacy is that we will be able to support hot memory unplug of generic kernel RAM in any reliable way! you really have to look at this from the conceptual angle: 'can an approach ever lead to a satisfactory result'? If the answer is 'no', then we _must not_ add a 90% solution that we _know_ will never be a 100% solution. for the separate-removable-zones approach we see the end of the tunnel. Separate zones are well-understood. generic unpluggable kernel RAM _will not work_. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-11-02 08:22 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||