From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <46935CEB.3050204@yahoo.com.au> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:18:19 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: zone movable patches comments References: <4691E8D1.4030507@yahoo.com.au> <20070709110457.GB9305@skynet.ie> <469226CB.4010900@yahoo.com.au> <20070709132140.GC9305@skynet.ie> <46933BD7.2020200@yahoo.com.au> <20070710095116.GB12052@skynet.ie> <46935C84.9060407@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <46935C84.9060407@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Mel Gorman , Linux Memory Management , Andrew Morton , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Andy Whitcroft List-ID: Nick Piggin wrote: > I'm not completely against kernelcore=, no. However I do think that > should be a general parameter that exists for the core kernel. I guess it > would override any other reservations and things, and it would specify the > absolute minimum kernelcore. > > Then if you add a movable_mem= (or something -- I don't know what the > exact name should be), then that would also specify the minimum movable > memory, although at a lower priority to kernelcore= (and you could have > the appropriate warnings and such if they cannot be satisfied). Ah yes, I now read Andy's mail and this is what he is suggesting, so yes it seems like a good idea I think. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. -- 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