From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: uninitialized pmem struct pages
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:37:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dd49a67a-109e-b5c1-2010-572587fe4ed6@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4jATooJTwXXGBvPrcCu57Ldt=6aBSEzaSqbwcHmczVaZg@mail.gmail.com>
>> Yeah, obviously the first one. Being able to add+use PMEM is more
>> important than using each and every last MB of main memory.
>>
>> I wonder if we can just stop adding any system RAM like
>>
>> [ Memory Section ]
>> [ RAM ] [ Hole ]
>>
>> When there could be the possibility that the hole might actually be
>> PMEM. (e.g., with CONFIG_ZONE_DEVICE and it being the last section in a
>> sequence of sections, not just a tiny hole)
>
> I like the simplicity of it... I worry that the capacity loss
> regression is easy to notice by looking at the output of free(1) from
> one kernel to the next and someone screams.
Well, you can always make it configurable and then simply fail to add
PMEM later if impossible (trying to sub-section hot-add into early
section). It's in the hands of the sysadmin then ("max out system ram"
vs. "support any PMEM device that could eventually be there at
runtime"). Distros would go for the second.
I agree that it's not optimal, but sometimes simplicity has to win.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-05 9:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-04 10:03 Michal Hocko
2021-01-04 10:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-04 14:26 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-04 14:51 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-04 15:10 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-04 15:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-04 15:33 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-04 15:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-04 15:44 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-05 8:00 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 8:16 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 8:27 ` Dan Williams
2021-01-05 8:42 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 8:57 ` Dan Williams
2021-01-05 9:05 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 9:13 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-05 9:25 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 9:27 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-04 15:59 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-04 16:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-05 7:44 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 9:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-05 5:33 ` Dan Williams
2021-01-05 7:40 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 5:17 ` Dan Williams
2021-01-05 7:50 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 9:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-05 9:25 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-05 9:33 ` Dan Williams
2021-01-05 9:37 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2021-01-05 9:56 ` Dan Williams
2021-01-05 9:58 ` David Hildenbrand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=dd49a67a-109e-b5c1-2010-572587fe4ed6@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox