Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 17:52:31 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Yasuaki Ishimatsu <yasu.isimatu@gmail.com>, qiuxishi@huawei.com,
        Kani Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@hpe.com>, slaoub@gmail.com,
        Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>,
        Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memory_hotplug: support movable_node for
 hotplugable nodes
Message-ID: <20170601155204.GB8088@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20170601122004.32732-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <820164f3-8bef-7761-0695-88db9e0ce7a7@suse.cz>
 <20170601142227.GF9091@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170601151935.m5jbfmugocc66qfq@arbab-laptop.localdomain>
 <20170601153838.GA8088@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170601154746.wjc56eldgyzr2bpm@arbab-laptop.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170601154746.wjc56eldgyzr2bpm@arbab-laptop.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 945
Lines: 22

On Thu 01-06-17 10:47:46, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 05:38:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Thu 01-06-17 10:19:36, Reza Arbab wrote:
> >>The x86 SRAT (or the dt, on other platforms) can describe memory as
> >>hotpluggable. See memblock_mark_hotplug(). That's only for memory present at
> >>boot, though.
> >
> >Yes but lose that information after the memblock is gone and numa fully
> >initialized. Or can we reconstruct that somehow?
> 
> I'm not sure you'd have to. At boot time, those markings are used to
> determine the initial boundaries of ZONE_MOVABLE. So if you removed these
> memblocks, then readded them, they would still be in ZONE_MOVABLE.

Yes but that already works like that. I am nore interested in the case
when the node goes away and it is added again. echo online > ... would
result in a non-movable memory and that is the inconsistency I tried to
call out in the changelog

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs