Message-ID: <557F6E6E.9060104@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:31:42 +0900
From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
CC: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "nao.horiguchi@gmail.com" <nao.horiguchi@gmail.com>,
        Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "mingo@elte.hu" <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Xiexiuqi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 10/12] mm: add the buddy system interface
References: <55704A7E.5030507@huawei.com> <55704CC4.8040707@huawei.com> <557691E0.5020203@jp.fujitsu.com> <5576BA2B.6060907@huawei.com> <5577A9A9.7010108@jp.fujitsu.com> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F32A8F209@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> <557E911F.5040602@jp.fujitsu.com> <20150615172023.GA12088@agluck-desk.sc.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150615172023.GA12088@agluck-desk.sc.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2351
Lines: 57

On 2015/06/16 2:20, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:47:27PM +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
>> So, there are 3 ideas.
>>
>>   (1) kernel only from MIRROR / user only from MOVABLE (Tony)
>>   (2) kernel only from MIRROR / user from MOVABLE + MIRROR(ASAP)  (AKPM suggested)
>>       This makes use of the fact MOVABLE memory is reclaimable but Tony pointed out
>>       the memory reclaim can be critical for GFP_ATOMIC.
>>   (3) kernel only from MIRROR / user from MOVABLE, special user from MIRROR (Xishi)
>>
>> 2 Implementation ideas.
>>    - creating ZONE
>>    - creating new alloation attribute
>>
>> I don't convince whether we need some new structure in mm. Isn't it good to use
>> ZONE_MOVABLE for not-mirrored memory ?
>> Then, disable fallback from ZONE_MOVABLE -> ZONE_NORMAL for (1) and (3)
>
> We might need to rename it ... right now the memory hotplug
> people use ZONE_MOVABLE to indicate regions of physical memory
> that can be removed from the system.  I'm wondering whether
> people will want systems that have both removable and mirrored
> areas?  Then we have four attribute combinations:
>
> mirror=no  removable=no  - prefer to use for user, could use for kernel if we run out of mirror
> mirror=no  removable=yes - can only be used for user (kernel allocation makes it not-removable)
> mirror=yes removable=no  - use for kernel, possibly for special users if we define some interface
> mirror=yes removable=yes - must not use for kernel ... would have to give to user ... seems like a bad idea to configure a system this way
>

Thank you for clarification. I see "mirror=no, removable=no" case may require a new name.

IMHO, the value of Address-Based-Memory-Mirror is that users can protect their system's
important functions without using full-memory mirror. So, I feel thinking
"mirror=no, removable=no" just makes our discussion/implemenation complex without real
user value.

Shouldn't we start with just thiking 2 cases of
  mirror=no  removable=yes
  mirror=yes removable=no
?

And then, if the naming is problem, alias name can be added.

Thanks,
-Kame


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/