Re: [PATCH 6/6] mem-hotplug: Introduce movablenode boot option

[Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>]

On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 00:08 +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> Hello toshi-san
> 
> On 09/25/2013 12:00 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 23:24 +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> >> Hello tejun,
> >>
> >> On 09/24/2013 09:31 PM, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> >>>> This came up during earlier review but never was addressed.  Is
> >>>>> "movablenode" the right name?  Shouldn't it be something which
> >>>>> explicitly shows that it's to prepare for memory hotplug?  Also, maybe
> >>>>> the above param should generate warning if CONFIG_MOVABLE_NODE isn't
> >>>>> enabled?
> >>> hmmm...as for the option name, if this option is set, it means, the kernel
> >>> could support the functionality that a whole node is the so called
> >>> movable node, which only has ZONE MOVABLE zone in it. So we choose
> >>> to name the parameter "movablenode".
> >>>
> >>> As for the warning, will add it.
> >>
> >> I am now preparing the v5 version. Only in this patch we haven't come to an
> >> agreement. So as for the boot option name, after my explanation, do you still
> >> have the objection? Or you could suggest a good name for us, that'll be
> >> very thankful:)
> > 
> > I do not think the granularity has to stay as a node, and this option
> > does nothing to with other devices that may be included in a node.  So,
> > how about using "movablemem"?
> > 
> 
> As I explained before, we use movablenode to mean a node could only have
> a MOVABLE zone from the memory aspect. So I still think movablenode seems
> better than movablemem. movablemem seems vaguer here....

But a node may contain other devices, such CPUs and PCI bridges.  To me,
movablenode does not clarify that this option is from the memory
aspect...

Thanks,
-Toshi


--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>