From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx137.postini.com [74.125.245.137]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3DA906B0006 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:57:39 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] mm: reinititalise user and admin reserves if memory is added or removed Message-Id: <20130408135739.a373580e624def371b542df5@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20130408190738.GC2321@localhost.localdomain> References: <20130408190738.GC2321@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Shewmaker Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, simon.jeons@gmail.com, ric.masonn@gmail.com On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:07:38 -0400 Andrew Shewmaker wrote: > This patch alters the admin and user reserves of the previous patches > in this series when memory is added or removed. > > If memory is added and the reserves have been eliminated or increased above > the default max, then we'll trust the admin. > > If memory is removed and there isn't enough free memory, then we > need to reset the reserves. > > Otherwise keep the reserve set by the admin. > > The reserve reset code is the same as the reserve initialization code. > > Does this sound reasonable to other people? I figured that hot removal > with too large of memory in the reserves was the most important case > to get right. > > I tested hot addition and removal by triggering it via sysfs. The reserves > shrunk when they were set high and memory was removed. They were reset > higher when memory was added again. I have added your Signed-off-by: to my copy of this patch. -- 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