Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: remove CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
From: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Date: 2026-03-19 18:24:19
Also in:
linux-mm, linux-riscv, linux-rt-devel, linux-s390, linuxppc-dev, lkml, loongarch
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2026-03-19 · Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: remove CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE · "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
- 2026-03-19 · Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: remove CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE · Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
- 2026-03-19 · Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: remove CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE · Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>
- 2026-03-19 · Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: remove CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE · "Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)" <ljs@kernel.org>
- 2026-03-19 · Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: remove CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE · Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
On 19 Mar 2026, at 14:15, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
On 3/19/26 19:12, Zi Yan wrote:quoted
On 19 Mar 2026, at 14:08, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:quoted
On 3/19/26 16:24, Gregory Price wrote:quoted
HOTREMOVE has long been a thorn in my side, I appreciate you cleaning this up.On a long cardrive today I was wondering: do we still need a separate MEMORY_HOTREMOVEYou mean merge HOTREMOVE into HOTPLUG?Yes, only have a single config.quoted
I wondered the same. Is there a reason to only have HOTPLUG without HOTREMOVE?In the past some architectures (e.g., s390x) did not support HOTREMOVE. Then it made sense. I'm not sure if someone would want to build a kernel with HOTPLUG but not have the bit of overhead for unplug+migration. So I would guess nothing major speaks against it.
Sounds reasonable to me. Best Regards, Yan, Zi