From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751032Ab3ARG0q (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:26:46 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:47271 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750830Ab3ARG0p (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:26:45 -0500 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <50F8E63F.5040401@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <1358154925-21537-1-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <50F440F5.3030006@zytor.com> <20130114143456.3962f3bd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F1C97C2DA@ORSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> <20130114144601.1c40dc7e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <50F647E8.509@jp.fujitsu.com> <20130116132953.6159b673.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <50F72F17.9030805@zytor.com> <50F78750.8070403@jp.fujitsu.com> <50F79422.6090405@zytor.com> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F1C986D98@ORSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> <50F85ED5.3010003@jp.fujitsu.com> <50F8E63F.5040401@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] Add movablecore_map boot option From: "H. Peter Anvin" Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:25:20 -0800 To: Yasuaki Ishimatsu , KOSAKI Motohiro , tony.luck@intel.com CC: akpm@linux-foundation.org, tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com, jiang.liu@huawei.com, wujianguo@huawei.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, linfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, yinghai@kernel.org, rob@landley.net, minchan.kim@gmail.com, mgorman@suse.de, rientjes@google.com, guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, lliubbo@gmail.com, jaegeuk.hanse@gmail.com, glommer@parallels.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Message-ID: <818a2b0a-f471-413f-9231-6167eb2d9607@email.android.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org We already do DMI parsing in the kernel... Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote: >2013/01/18 5:28, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> On 1/17/2013 11:30 AM, Luck, Tony wrote: >>>> 2. If the user *does* care which nodes are movable, then the user >needs >>>> to be able to specify that *in a way that makes sense to the user*. >>>> This may mean involving the DMI information as well as SRAT in >order to >>>> get "silk screen" type information out. >>> >>> One reason they might care would be which I/O devices are connected >>> to each node. DMI might be a good way to get an invariant name for >the >>> node, but they might also want to specify in terms of what they >actually >>> want. E.g. "eth0 and eth4 are a redundant bonded pair of NICs - >don't >>> mark both these nodes as removable". Though this is almost >certainly not >>> a job for kernel options, but for some user configuration tool that >would >>> spit out the DMI names. >> >> I agree DMI parsing should be done in userland if we really need DMI >parsing. >> > >If users use the boot parameter for bugs or debugging, users need >a method which sets in detail range of movable memory. So specifying >node number is not enough because whole memory becomes movable memory. > >For this, we are discussing other ways, memory range and DMI >information. >By using DMI information, users may get an invariant name. But is it >really user friendly interface? I don't think so. > >You will think using memory range is not user friendly interface too. >But I think that using memory range is friendlier than using DMI >information since we can get easily memory range. So from developper >side, using memory range is good. > >Of course, using SRAT information is necessary solution. So we are >developing it now. > >Thanks, >Yasuaki Ishimatsu -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.