On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 02:21:46PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 01/29/2016 10:54 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> > +void resize_hpt_for_hotplug(unsigned long new_mem_size)
> > +{
> > + unsigned target_hpt_shift;
> > +
> > + if (!ppc_md.resize_hpt)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + target_hpt_shift = htab_shift_for_mem_size(new_mem_size);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * To avoid lots of HPT resizes if memory size is fluctuating
> > + * across a boundary, we deliberately have some hysterisis
>
>
> What do you mean by 'memory size is fluctuating across a boundary' ?
> Through memory hotplug interface ? Why some one will do that ?
I was thinking it might be possible to have some management system
that automatically adjusts memory size based on load, and if that
happened to land on a boundary you could get nasty behaviour.
> I
> can understand why we dont have this check in the sysfs debug path
> as we would like to test any memory HPT re sizing scenario we want
> in any sequence of increase or decrease we want.
>
> Overall the RFC V2 looks pretty good. Looking forward to see the
> host side of the code for this feature.
The qemu host side has been posted to qemu-de...@nongnu.org already.
I haven't started on a KVM HV implementation yet.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
