From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx132.postini.com [74.125.245.132]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0FD6D6B0062 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:46:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:46:01 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] Add movablecore_map boot option Message-Id: <20130114144601.1c40dc7e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F1C97C2DA@ORSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <1358154925-21537-1-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <50F440F5.3030006@zytor.com> <20130114143456.3962f3bd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F1C97C2DA@ORSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Tang Chen , "jiang.liu@huawei.com" , "wujianguo@huawei.com" , "wency@cn.fujitsu.com" , "laijs@cn.fujitsu.com" , "linfeng@cn.fujitsu.com" , "yinghai@kernel.org" , "isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com" , "rob@landley.net" , "kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" , "minchan.kim@gmail.com" , "mgorman@suse.de" , "rientjes@google.com" , "guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com" , "rusty@rustcorp.com.au" , "lliubbo@gmail.com" , "jaegeuk.hanse@gmail.com" , "glommer@parallels.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:41:03 +0000 "Luck, Tony" wrote: > > hm, why. Obviously SRAT support will improve things, but is it > > actually unusable/unuseful with the command line configuration? > > Users will want to set these moveable zones along node boundaries > (the whole purpose is to be able to remove a node by making sure > the kernel won't allocate anything tricky in it, right?) So raw addresses > are usable ... but to get them right the user will have to go parse the > SRAT table manually to come up with the addresses. Any time you > make the user go off and do some tedious calculation that the computer > should have done for them is user-abuse. > Sure. But SRAT configuration is in progress and the boot option is better than nothing? Things I'm wondering: - is there *really* a case for retaining the boot option if/when SRAT support is available? - will the boot option be needed for other archictectures, presumably because they don't provide sufficient layout information to the kernel? -- 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