From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754409AbcDFWNb (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:13:31 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:33296 "EHLO mail-pf0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754356AbcDFWN3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:13:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:13:27 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Andrew Morton cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Dan Williams , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Mel Gorman , David Vrabel , Igor Mammedov , Lennart Poettering Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] memory_hotplug: introduce config and command line options to set the default onlining policy In-Reply-To: <20160406115334.82af80e922f8b3eec6336a8b@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <1459950312-25504-1-git-send-email-vkuznets@redhat.com> <20160406115334.82af80e922f8b3eec6336a8b@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Andrew Morton wrote: > > This patchset continues the work I started with: > > > > commit 31bc3858ea3ebcc3157b3f5f0e624c5962f5a7a6 > > Author: Vitaly Kuznetsov > > Date: Tue Mar 15 14:56:48 2016 -0700 > > > > memory-hotplug: add automatic onlining policy for the newly added memory > > > > Initially I was going to stop there and bring the policy setting logic to > > userspace. I met two issues on this way: > > > > 1) It is possible to have memory hotplugged at boot (e.g. with QEMU). These > > blocks stay offlined if we turn the onlining policy on by userspace. > > > > 2) My attempt to bring this policy setting to systemd failed, systemd > > maintainers suggest to change the default in kernel or ... to use tmpfiles.d > > to alter the policy (which looks like a hack to me): > > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/2938 > > That discussion really didn't come to a conclusion and I don't > understand why you consider Lennert's "recommended way" to be a hack? > > > Here I suggest to add a config option to set the default value for the policy > > and a kernel command line parameter to make the override. > > But the patchset looks pretty reasonable regardless of the above. > I don't understand why initscripts simply cannot crawl sysfs memory blocks and online them for the same behavior.