[PATCH v6 00/15] memory-hotplug: hot-remove physical memory

Kamezawa Hiroyuki kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com
Thu Jan 10 18:31:28 EST 2013

(2013/01/10 16:14), Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 01/10/2013 06:17 AM, Tang Chen wrote:
>>>> Note: if the memory provided by the memory device is used by the
>>>> kernel, it
>>>> can't be offlined. It is not a bug.
>>> Right.  But how often does this happen in testing?  In other words,
>>> please provide an overall description of how well memory hot-remove is
>>> presently operating.  Is it reliable?  What is the success rate in
>>> real-world situations?
>> We test the hot-remove functionality mostly with movable_online used.
>> And the memory used by kernel is not allowed to be removed.
> Can you try doing this using cpusets configured to hardwall ?
> It is my understanding that the object allocators will try hard not to
> allocate anything outside the walls defined by cpuset. Which means that
> if you have one process per node, and they are hardwalled, your kernel
> memory will be spread evenly among the machine. With a big enough load,
> they should eventually be present in all blocks.

I'm sorry I couldn't catch your point.
Do you want to confirm whether cpuset can work enough instead of ZONE_MOVABLE ?
Or Do you want to confirm whether ZONE_MOVABLE will not work if it's used with cpuset ?

> Another question I have for you: Have you considering calling
> shrink_slab to try to deplete the caches and therefore free at least
> slab memory in the nodes that can't be offlined? Is it relevant?

At this stage, we don't consider to call shrink_slab(). We require
nearly 100% success at offlining memory for removing DIMM.
It's my understanding.

IMHO, I don't think shrink_slab() can kill all objects in a node even
if they are some caches. We need more study for doing that.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list