On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 02:12:33PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
the movable zone is, however, not bound to any physical memory restriction.
It merely
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 02:12:33PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
the movable zone is, however, not bound to any physical memory restriction.
It merely
On 07/14/2017 02:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
> the movable zone is, however, not bound to any physical
On 07/14/2017 02:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
> the movable zone is, however, not bound to any physical memory restriction.
>
From: Michal Hocko
Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
the movable zone is, however, not bound to any physical memory restriction.
It merely defines a class of
From: Michal Hocko
Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
the movable zone is, however, not bound to any physical memory restriction.
It merely defines a class of migrateable and
Are there any other concerns regarding this patch? Can I repost it for
inclusion?
On Thu 29-06-17 09:35:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory
Are there any other concerns regarding this patch? Can I repost it for
inclusion?
On Thu 29-06-17 09:35:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The
On Mon 10-07-17 14:12:09, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/10/2017 01:17 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 10-07-17 13:11:29, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 07/10/2017 08:45 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> On Fri 07-07-17 17:02:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [+CC linux-api]
>
>
> Hm
On Mon 10-07-17 14:12:09, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/10/2017 01:17 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 10-07-17 13:11:29, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 07/10/2017 08:45 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> On Fri 07-07-17 17:02:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [+CC linux-api]
>
>
> Hm
On 07/10/2017 01:17 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 10-07-17 13:11:29, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 07/10/2017 08:45 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Fri 07-07-17 17:02:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[+CC linux-api]
Hm so previously, blocks 37-41 would only allow Movable at this
On 07/10/2017 01:17 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 10-07-17 13:11:29, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 07/10/2017 08:45 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Fri 07-07-17 17:02:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[+CC linux-api]
Hm so previously, blocks 37-41 would only allow Movable at this
On Mon 10-07-17 13:11:29, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/10/2017 08:45 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 07-07-17 17:02:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> [+CC linux-api]
> >>
> >> On 06/29/2017 09:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> From: Michal Hocko
> >>>
> >>> Historically we have
On Mon 10-07-17 13:11:29, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/10/2017 08:45 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 07-07-17 17:02:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> [+CC linux-api]
> >>
> >> On 06/29/2017 09:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> From: Michal Hocko
> >>>
> >>> Historically we have enforced that
On 07/10/2017 08:45 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 07-07-17 17:02:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> [+CC linux-api]
>>
>> On 06/29/2017 09:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> From: Michal Hocko
>>>
>>> Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
>>> to
On 07/10/2017 08:45 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 07-07-17 17:02:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> [+CC linux-api]
>>
>> On 06/29/2017 09:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> From: Michal Hocko
>>>
>>> Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
>>> to precede the Movable
On Fri 07-07-17 17:02:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [+CC linux-api]
>
> On 06/29/2017 09:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> > to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory
On Fri 07-07-17 17:02:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [+CC linux-api]
>
> On 06/29/2017 09:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> > to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
[+CC linux-api]
On 06/29/2017 09:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
> the movable zone is, however, not bound to
[+CC linux-api]
On 06/29/2017 09:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
> the movable zone is, however, not bound to any physical
On Fri 07-07-17 16:37:23, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:56:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> Below is a result with a little changed kernel to show the start_pfn
> >> always.
> >> The sequence is:
> >> 1. bootup
> >>
> >> Node 0, zone Movable
> >> spanned 65536
> >>
On Fri 07-07-17 16:37:23, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:56:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> Below is a result with a little changed kernel to show the start_pfn
> >> always.
> >> The sequence is:
> >> 1. bootup
> >>
> >> Node 0, zone Movable
> >> spanned 65536
> >>
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:56:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> Below is a result with a little changed kernel to show the start_pfn always.
>> The sequence is:
>> 1. bootup
>>
>> Node 0, zone Movable
>> spanned 65536
>> present 0
>> managed 0
>> start_pfn: 0
>>
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:56:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> Below is a result with a little changed kernel to show the start_pfn always.
>> The sequence is:
>> 1. bootup
>>
>> Node 0, zone Movable
>> spanned 65536
>> present 0
>> managed 0
>> start_pfn: 0
>>
On Thu 06-07-17 07:16:49, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:01:18PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Fri 30-06-17 11:55:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Fri 30-06-17 17:39:56, Wei Yang wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
On Thu 06-07-17 07:16:49, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:01:18PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Fri 30-06-17 11:55:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Fri 30-06-17 17:39:56, Wei Yang wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > > yes and to be
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:01:18PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>On Fri 30-06-17 11:55:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Fri 30-06-17 17:39:56, Wei Yang wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> [...]
>> > > yes and to be honest I do not plan to fix it
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:01:18PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>On Fri 30-06-17 11:55:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Fri 30-06-17 17:39:56, Wei Yang wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> [...]
>> > > yes and to be honest I do not plan to fix it unless somebody has a
On Fri 30-06-17 11:55:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 30-06-17 17:39:56, Wei Yang wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > yes and to be honest I do not plan to fix it unless somebody has a real
> > > life usecase for it. Now that we allow
On Fri 30-06-17 11:55:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 30-06-17 17:39:56, Wei Yang wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > yes and to be honest I do not plan to fix it unless somebody has a real
> > > life usecase for it. Now that we allow explicit onlininig
On Fri 30-06-17 17:39:56, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > yes and to be honest I do not plan to fix it unless somebody has a real
> > life usecase for it. Now that we allow explicit onlininig type anywhere
> > it seems like a
On Fri 30-06-17 17:39:56, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > yes and to be honest I do not plan to fix it unless somebody has a real
> > life usecase for it. Now that we allow explicit onlininig type anywhere
> > it seems like a reasonable behavior
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 30-06-17 11:09:51, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > From: Michal Hocko
>> >
>>
>> Michal,
>>
>> I love the idea very much.
>>
>
> You
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 30-06-17 11:09:51, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > From: Michal Hocko
>> >
>>
>> Michal,
>>
>> I love the idea very much.
>>
>
> You haven't written your sequence of onlining but if you
On Fri 30-06-17 11:09:51, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
>
> Michal,
>
> I love the idea very much.
>
> > Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> > to
On Fri 30-06-17 11:09:51, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
>
> Michal,
>
> I love the idea very much.
>
> > Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> > to precede the Movable zone in the physical
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
Michal,
I love the idea very much.
> Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
Michal,
I love the idea very much.
> Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
> the movable zone is, however,
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:35:09AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
> the movable zone is, however, not bound to
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:35:09AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
> to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
> the movable zone is, however, not bound to any physical
From: Michal Hocko
Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
the movable zone is, however, not bound to any physical memory restriction.
It merely defines a class of
From: Michal Hocko
Historically we have enforced that any kernel zone (e.g ZONE_NORMAL) has
to precede the Movable zone in the physical memory range. The purpose of
the movable zone is, however, not bound to any physical memory restriction.
It merely defines a class of migrateable and
42 matches
Mail list logo