From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f181.google.com (mail-pd0-f181.google.com [209.85.192.181]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FDB56B0031 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:36:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f181.google.com with SMTP id g10so4800238pdj.40 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1380040432.14046.16.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mem-hotplug: Introduce movablenode boot option From: Toshi Kani Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:33:52 -0600 In-Reply-To: <5241B8FA.1030004@gmail.com> References: <524162DA.30004@cn.fujitsu.com> <5241655E.1000007@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130924124121.GG2366@htj.dyndns.org> <5241944B.4050103@gmail.com> <5241AEC0.6040505@gmail.com> <1380038410.14046.12.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <5241B8FA.1030004@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Zhang Yanfei Cc: Tejun Heo , Zhang Yanfei , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , lenb@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , mingo@elte.hu, "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Wanpeng Li , Thomas Renninger , Yinghai Lu , Jiang Liu , Wen Congyang , Lai Jiangshan , isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, Mel Gorman , Minchan Kim , mina86@mina86.com, gong.chen@linux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@profitbricks.com, lwoodman@redhat.com, Rik van Riel , jweiner@redhat.com, prarit@redhat.com, "x86@kernel.org" , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux MM , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, imtangchen@gmail.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: email@kvack.org