Re: [PATCH v5 25/36] mm/memory_hotplug: support N_MEMORY_PRIVATE node hotplug

[Gregory Price]

On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 09:05:39AM +0800, Qiqi Li wrote:
> On 8/17/2026 8:49 AM, Gregory Price wrote:
> > It would need to be reserved, and you could use numa emulation but
> > that's clunky.  I have an RFC for exactly this issue - though i haven't
> > pushed it further yet.
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260610014517.253609-1-gourry@xxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> Hi Gregory,
> 
> Sorry for the late reply.
> 
> I took a look at the exclusive-node RFC. The approach looks useful for
> device-backed private memory without a firmware-described NUMA node.
> Thanks for the pointer.
> 
> We are currently looking into the private-node and CRAM design as a
> whole. I noticed that CRAM was not included with the v5 series, and saw
> that others were also interested in a v5 version.
> 
> If you already have a CRAM branch or patches based on v5, even if they
> are still work in progress, would you mind sharing them? It would be
> very helpful for us to continue testing the overall design.
>

I dropped it off because it was starting to become unwieldly, but i am
continuing to maintain a branch on my github:

https://github.com/gourryinverse/linux/commits/scratch/gourry/cramtest/cram_72/

I have not posted a new version in some time and it has been reworked
significantly in the past few months - but I plan to talk about this
particular branch and the tests I've run with it at the device memory
LPC micro-conference.

I validated this branch against most in-tree (relevant) filesystems for
the page-cache extension, but I imagine the anon-only version subset is
the more immediately interesting for upstream development.

I may include the anon-only version in v6, but I've been a bit busy
shoring up the base private memory node core and implementing kernel
selftests and LTP tests to ensure there's no userland api regressions.

I hope to get something out later this month.

~Gregory