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

[Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>]

On Monday 07 November 2005 17:38, you wrote:
> >>RAM removal, not RAM replacement. I explained all the variants in an
> >>earlier email in this thread. "extending RAM" is relatively easy.
> >>"replacing RAM" while doable, is probably undesirable. "removing RAM"
> >>impossible.
>
> <snip>
>
> > BTW, I'm not suggesting any of this is a good idea, I just like to
> > understand why something _cant_ be done.
>
> I'm also of the opinion that if we make the kernel remap that we can
> "remove RAM".  Now, we've had enough people weigh in on this being a bad
> idea I'm not going to try it.  After all it is fairly complex, quite a bit
> more so than Mel's reasonable patches.  But I think it is possible.  The
> steps would look like this:
>
> Method A:
> 1. Find some unused RAM (or free some up)
> 2. Reserve that RAM
> 3. Copy the active data from the soon to be removed RAM to the reserved RAM
> 4. Remap the addresses
> 5. Remove the RAM
>
> This of course requires step 3 & 4 take place under something like
> stop_machine_run() to keep the data from changing.

Actually, what I was thinking is that if you use the swsusp infrastructure to 
suspend all processes, all dma, quiesce the heck out of the devices, and 
_then_ try to move the kernel...  Well, you at least have a much more 
controlled problem.  Yeah, it's pretty darn intrusive, but if you're doing 
"suspend to ram" perhaps the downtime could be only 5 or 10 seconds...

I don't know how much of the problem that leaves unsolved, though.

Rob