Michal Hocko writes:
> On Fri 24-02-17 17:40:25, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Michal Hocko writes:
>>
>> > On Fri 24-02-17 17:09:13, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> [...]
>> >> While this will most probably work for me I still disagree with the
>> >> concept of 'one size fits all' here and the default
On Fri 24-02-17 17:40:25, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Michal Hocko writes:
>
> > On Fri 24-02-17 17:09:13, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
[...]
> >> While this will most probably work for me I still disagree with the
> >> concept of 'one size fits all' here and the default 'false' for ACPI,
> >> we're tak
Michal Hocko writes:
> On Fri 24-02-17 17:09:13, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> I have a smal guest and I want to add more memory to it and the
>> result is ... OOM. Not something I expected.
>
> Which is not all that unexpected if you use a technology which has to
> allocated in order to add more
On Fri 24-02-17 17:09:13, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Michal Hocko writes:
>
> > On Fri 24-02-17 16:05:18, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> Michal Hocko writes:
> >>
> >> > On Fri 24-02-17 15:10:29, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >> Just did a quick (and probably dirty) test, increasing guest
Michal Hocko writes:
> On Fri 24-02-17 16:05:18, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Michal Hocko writes:
>>
>> > On Fri 24-02-17 15:10:29, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> [...]
>> >> Just did a quick (and probably dirty) test, increasing guest memory from
>> >> 4G to 8G (32 x 128mb blocks) require 68Mb of me
On Fri 24-02-17 16:05:18, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Michal Hocko writes:
>
> > On Fri 24-02-17 15:10:29, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
[...]
> >> Just did a quick (and probably dirty) test, increasing guest memory from
> >> 4G to 8G (32 x 128mb blocks) require 68Mb of memory, so it's roughly 2Mb
> >> p
Michal Hocko writes:
> On Fri 24-02-17 15:10:29, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Michal Hocko writes:
>>
>> > On Thu 23-02-17 19:14:27, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> [...]
>> >> Virtual guests under stress were getting into OOM easily and the OOM
>> >> killer was even killing the udev process trying to
On Fri 24-02-17 15:10:29, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Michal Hocko writes:
>
> > On Thu 23-02-17 19:14:27, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
[...]
> >> Virtual guests under stress were getting into OOM easily and the OOM
> >> killer was even killing the udev process trying to online the
> >> memory.
> >
> >
Michal Hocko writes:
> On Thu 23-02-17 19:14:27, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Michal Hocko writes:
>>
>> > On Thu 23-02-17 17:36:38, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> >> Michal Hocko writes:
>> > [...]
>> >> > Is a grow from 256M -> 128GB really something that happens in real life?
>> >> > Don't get me
On Thu 23-02-17 19:14:27, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Michal Hocko writes:
>
> > On Thu 23-02-17 17:36:38, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> Michal Hocko writes:
> > [...]
> >> > Is a grow from 256M -> 128GB really something that happens in real life?
> >> > Don't get me wrong but to me this sounds qui
Michal Hocko writes:
> On Thu 23-02-17 17:36:38, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Michal Hocko writes:
> [...]
>> > Is a grow from 256M -> 128GB really something that happens in real life?
>> > Don't get me wrong but to me this sounds quite exaggerated. Hotmem add
>> > which is an operation which has
On Thu 23-02-17 17:36:38, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Michal Hocko writes:
[...]
> > Is a grow from 256M -> 128GB really something that happens in real life?
> > Don't get me wrong but to me this sounds quite exaggerated. Hotmem add
> > which is an operation which has to allocate memory has to scale
Michal Hocko writes:
> On Thu 23-02-17 16:49:06, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Michal Hocko writes:
>>
>> > On Thu 23-02-17 14:31:24, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> >> Michal Hocko writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Wed 22-02-17 10:32:34, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >> > There is a workaround
On Thu 23-02-17 16:49:06, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Michal Hocko writes:
>
> > On Thu 23-02-17 14:31:24, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> Michal Hocko writes:
> >>
> >> > On Wed 22-02-17 10:32:34, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> > There is a workaround in that a user could online the m
Michal Hocko writes:
> On Thu 23-02-17 14:31:24, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Michal Hocko writes:
>>
>> > On Wed 22-02-17 10:32:34, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> > There is a workaround in that a user could online the memory or have
>> >> > a udev rule to online the memory by using th
On Thu 23-02-17 14:31:24, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Michal Hocko writes:
>
> > On Wed 22-02-17 10:32:34, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > There is a workaround in that a user could online the memory or have
> >> > a udev rule to online the memory by using the sysfs interface. The
> >> > s
Michal Hocko writes:
> On Wed 22-02-17 10:32:34, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> [...]
>> > There is a workaround in that a user could online the memory or have
>> > a udev rule to online the memory by using the sysfs interface. The
>> > sysfs interface to online memory goes through device_online() whi
On Wed 22-02-17 10:32:34, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
[...]
> > There is a workaround in that a user could online the memory or have
> > a udev rule to online the memory by using the sysfs interface. The
> > sysfs interface to online memory goes through device_online() which
> > should updated the dev-
Hi,
s,memhp_auto_offline,memhp_auto_online, in the subject please :-)
Nathan Fontenot writes:
> Commit 31bc3858e "add automatic onlining policy for the newly added memory"
> provides the capability to have added memory automatically onlined
> during add, but this appears to be slightly broken.
Commit 31bc3858e "add automatic onlining policy for the newly added memory"
provides the capability to have added memory automatically onlined
during add, but this appears to be slightly broken.
The current implementation uses walk_memory_range() to call
online_memory_block, which uses memory_bloc
20 matches
Mail list logo
