Re: [PATCH 0/4] Support dynamic (de)configuration of memory

Sumanth Korikkar
2025-10-08T09:14:06Z

> > > I wonder if the above two are really required. I would expect most/all users
> > > to simply keep using -e / -d.
> > >
> > > Sure, there might be some corner cases, but I would assume most people to
> > > not want to care about memmap-on-memory with the new model.
> >
> > I believe this remains very beneficial for customers in the following
> > scenario:
> >
> > 1) Initial memory layout:
> > 4 GB configured online
> > 512 GB standby
> >
> > If memory_hotplug.memmap_on_memory=Y is set in the kernel command line:
> > Suppose user requires more memory and onlines 256 GB. With memmap-on-memory
> > enabled, this likely succeeds by default.
> >
> > Later, the user needs 256 GB of contiguous physical memory across memory
> > blocks. Then, the user can still configure those memory blocks with
> > memmap-on-memory disabled and online it.
> >
> > 2) If the administrator forgets to configure
> > memory_hotplug.memmap_on_memory=Y, the following steps can be taken:
> > Rescue from OOM situations: configure with memmap-on-memory enabled, online it.
>
> That's my point: I don't consider either very likely to be used by actual
> admins.
>
> I guess in (1) it really only is a problem with very big memory blocks.
> Assuming a memory block is just 128 MiB (or even 1 GiB), you can add+online
> them individually. Once you succeeded with the first one (very likely), the
> other ones will follow.
>
> Sure, if you are so low on memory that you cannot even a single memory
> block, then memmap-on-memory makes sense.
>
> But note that memmap-on-memory was added to handle hotplug of large chunks
> of memory (large DIMM/NVDIMM, large CXL device) in one go, without the
> chance to add+online individual memory blocks incrementally.

Interesting. Thanks David.

Heiko suggested that memory increment size could also be upto
64GB. In that case, it might be useful.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250521142149.11483C95-hca@linux.ibm.com/

> That's also the reason why I didn't care so far to implement
> memmap-on-memory support for virito-mem: as we add+online individual (small)
> emmory blocks, the implementation effort for supporting memmap_on_memory was
> so far not warranted.
>
> (it's a bit trickier for virtio-mem to implement :) )
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> David / dhildenb
>