Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 14 Feb 2018 10:59:11 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] mm, page_alloc: extend kernelcore and movablecore
 for percent
Message-ID: <20180214095911.GB28460@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1802121622470.179479@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1802121622470.179479@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 12-02-18 16:24:25, David Rientjes wrote:
> Both kernelcore= and movablecore= can be used to define the amount of
> ZONE_NORMAL and ZONE_MOVABLE on a system, respectively.  This requires
> the system memory capacity to be known when specifying the command line,
> however.
> 
> This introduces the ability to define both kernelcore= and movablecore=
> as a percentage of total system memory.  This is convenient for systems
> software that wants to define the amount of ZONE_MOVABLE, for example, as
> a proportion of a system's memory rather than a hardcoded byte value.
> 
> To define the percentage, the final character of the parameter should be
> a '%'.

I do not have any objections regarding the extension. What I am more
interested in is _why_ people are still using this command line
parameter at all these days. Why would anybody want to introduce lowmem
issues from 32b days. I can see the CMA/Hotplug usecases for
ZONE_MOVABLE but those have their own ways to define zone movable. I was
tempted to simply remove the kernelcore already. Could you be more
specific what is your usecase which triggered a need of an easier
scaling of the size?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs