Re: [PATCH -v2 0/9] mm: make movable onlining suck less

[Balbir Singh]

On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 12:35 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 01:03:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Hi,
> > The last version of this series has been posted here [1]. It has seen
> > some more serious testing (thanks to Reza Arbab) and fixes for the found
> > issues. I have also decided to drop patch 1 [2] because it turned out to
> > be more complicated than I initially thought [3]. Few more patches were
> > added to deal with expectation on zone/node initialization.
> > 
> > I have rebased on top of the current mmotm-2017-04-07-15-53. It
> > conflicts with HMM because it touches memory hotplug as
> > well. We have discussed [4] with JÃrÃme and he agreed to
> > rebase on top of this rework [5] so I have reverted his series
> > before applyig mine. I will help him to resolve the resulting
> > conflicts. You can find the whole series including the HMM revers in
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git branch
> > attempts/rewrite-mem_hotplug
> > 
> 
> So updated HMM patchset :
> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~glisse/linux/log/?h=hmm-v20
> 
> I am not posting yet as it seems there is couple thing you need to
> fix in your patchset first. However if you could review :
> 
> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~glisse/linux/commit/?h=hmm-v20&id=84fc68534e781cf6125d02b3bfdba4a51e82d9c9
> 
> As it was your idea, i just want to make sure i didn't denatured
> it :)
> 
> Also as side note, v20 fix build issue by restricting HMM to x86-64
> which is safer than pretending this can be use on any random arch
> as build failures i am getting clearly shows that thing i assumed to
> be true on all arch aren't.

In that case could you please document what an arch needs to do to enable
HMM? What are the dependencies and requirements?

Balbir Singh.