lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] memory hotplug disable boot option
    On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:04:15 -0700
    Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:

    > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 09:03:04AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
    > > On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 11:56 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
    > > > > On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 08:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
    > > > > > > The directories being created are the standard directories, one for each of the memory
    > > > > > > sections present at boot. I think the most used files in each of these directories
    > > > > > > is the state and removable file used to do memory hotplug.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > And perhaps we shouldn't really be creating so many directories? Why
    > > > > > not work with the memory hotplug developers to change their interface to
    > > > > > not abuse sysfs in such a manner?
    > > > >
    > > > > Heh, it wasn't abuse until we got this much memory. But, I think this
    > > > > one is pretty much 100% my fault.
    > > > >
    > > > > Nathan, I think the right fix here is probably to untie sysfs from the
    > > > > sections a bit. We should be able to have sysfs dirs that represent
    > > > > more than one contiguous SECTION_SIZE area of memory.
    > > >
    > > > Why do we need abi breakage? Yourself talked about we guess ppc don't
    > > > actually need 16MB section. I think IBM folks have to confirm it.
    > > > If our guessing is correct, the firmware fixing is only necessary.
    > >
    > > >From the mouth of the kernel dumbass who coded this up: it's not the
    > > firmware's fault. We shouldn't punt this to them, and the proper fix
    > > _isn't_ in the firmware, plus they may have other more fundamental
    > > reasons to keep the LMB sizes what they are.
    >
    > I agree, this should be fixed in the api to userspace, having this many
    > sysfs directories and/or files is just looney.
    >
    > thanks,
    >

    Hmm, adding
    CONFIG_NEW_MEMORY_SYSFS_LAYOUT or
    memory_sysfs_layout=small boot option
    and adding a scalable interface for large scale machines ?
    I'd like to consider something..

    Thanks,
    -Kame





    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-30 02:39    [W:4.545 / U:0.384 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site