Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:13:35 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] mem-hotplug: introduce movablenode option |
| |
On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 19:23:54 +0800 Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> wrote:
> This patch introduces a new boot option movablenode. > > To support memory hotplug, boot option "movable_node" is needed. And to > support debug memory hotplug, boot option "movable_node" and "movablenode" > are both needed. > > e.g. movable_node movablenode=1,2,4
I have some naming concerns. "movable_node" and "movablenode" is just confusing and ugly.
Can we just use the one parameter? eg,
vmlinux movable_node
or
vmlinux movable_node=1,2,4
if not that, then how about "movable_node" and "movable_nodes"? Then every instance of "movablenode" in the patch itself should become "movable_nodes" to be consistent with the command line parameter.
> It means node 1,2,4 will be set to movable nodes, the other nodes are > unmovable nodes. Usually movable nodes are parsed from SRAT table which > offered by BIOS, so this boot option is used for debug. > > > --- > Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 4 ++++ > arch/x86/mm/srat.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt > index 82b42c9..f8726f8 100644 > --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt > +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt > @@ -2319,6 +2319,10 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted. > movable_node [KNL,X86] Boot-time switch to enable the effects > of CONFIG_MOVABLE_NODE=y. See mm/Kconfig for details. > > + movablenode= [KNL,X86] Boot-time switch to set which node is > + movable node. > + Format: <movable nid>,...,<movable nid>
I think the docs should emphasize that this option disables the usual SRAT-driven allocation and replaces it with manual allocation.
Also, can we please have more details in the patch changelog? Why do we *need* this? Just for debugging? Normally people will just use SRAT-based allocation so normal users won't use this? If so, why is this debugging feature considered useful enough to add to the kernel?
| |