From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43FE5018.8080604@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:15:20 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] ppc64 - Specify amount of kernel memory at boot time References: <20060217141552.7621.74444.sendpatchset@skynet.csn.ul.ie> <20060217141712.7621.49906.sendpatchset@skynet.csn.ul.ie> <1140196618.21383.112.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1140543359.8693.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1140712969.8697.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1140716304.8697.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1140718555.8697.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1140718555.8697.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dave Hansen Cc: Mel Gorman , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-ID: Dave Hansen wrote: >> That sort of surprise is totally unacceptable but the behaviour of >> kernelcore needs to be consistent on both the x86 and the ppc (any any >> other ar. How about; >> >> 1. kernelcore=X determines the total amount of memory for !ZONE_EASYRCLM >> (be it ZONE_DMA, ZONE_NORMAL or ZONE_HIGHMEM) > > Sounds reasonable. But, if you're going to do that, should we just make > it the opposite and explicitly be easy_reclaim_mem=? Do we want the > limit to be set as "I need this much kernel memory", or "I want this > much removable memory". I dunno. Now, amount of EASYRCLM memory can change in run time, but kernelcore memory cannot. So, I like kernelcore= option. I think this is clear setting for admin. -- Kame -- 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