Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Ingo Molnar wrote:

> really, once you accept that, the path out of this mess becomes 'easy': 
> we _have to_ compromise on the feature side! And the moment we give up 
> the notion of 'generic kernel RAM' and focus on the hot-removability of 
> a limited-functionality zone, the complexity of the solution becomes 
> three orders of magnitude smaller. No fragmentation avoidance necessary.  
> No 'have to handle dozens of very hard problems to become 99% 
> functional' issues. Once you make that zone an opt-in thing, it becomes 
> much better from a development dynamics point of view as well.
> 

I agree. Especially considering that all this memory hotplug usage for
hypervisors etc. is a relatively new thing with few of our userbase
actually using it. I think a simple zones solution is the right way to
go for now.

In future, if we have a large proportion of users who want it, and
their requirements are better understood, and there is still no
hardware / hypervisor support for handling this for us, *then* it is
time to re-evaluate our compromise.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>