Re: [Lhms-devel] RE: memory hotremove prototype, take 3
From: Pavel Machek
Date: Thu Dec 04 2003 - 06:02:08 EST
> > > I still think we could use the CPU's virtualization mechanism--of course,
> > > and as you and Tony Luck mention, we'd had to track down and modify the
> > > parts that assume physical memory et al. That they use large pages
> > > or
> > ...which means basically auditing whole kernel, and rewriting half of
> > drivers. Good luck with _that_.
> Bingo...just the perfect excuse I need to give to my manager to keep
> a low profile while tinkering around for a long time :)
> Okay, so I will play a wee bit more the devil's advocate as an
> exercise of futility, if you don't mind. Just trying to compile a
> (possibly incomplete) quick list of what would be needed, can you
> guys help me? you know way more than I do:
> 1) the core kernel needs to be independent of physical memory position
> 1.1) same with drivers/subsystems
> 1.2) filesystems
> [it cannot be really incomplete because I have added all the code
...and you have bad problem at any place where physical address is
passed to the hardware. UHCI is going to be "interesting".
Horseback riding is like software...
...vgf orggre jura vgf serr.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/