Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:59:50 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] [REPOST] mm: show node to memory section relationship with symlinks in sysfs |
| |
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:33:57 -0700 Gary Hade <garyhade@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:42:39PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:21:15 -0700 > > Gary Hade <garyhade@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > Show node to memory section relationship with symlinks in sysfs > > > > > > Add /sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/memoryY symlinks for all > > > the memory sections located on nodeX. For example: > > > /sys/devices/system/node/node1/memory135 -> ../../memory/memory135 > > > indicates that memory section 135 resides on node1. > > > > I'm not seeing here a description of why the kernel needs this feature. > > Why is it useful? How will it be used? What value does it have to > > our users? > > Sorry, I should have included that. In our case, it is another > small step towards eventual total node removal. We will need to > know which memory sections to offline for whatever node is targeted > for removal. However, I suspect that exposing the node to section > information to user-level could be useful for other purposes. > For example, I have been thinking that using memory hotremove > functionality to modify the amount of available memory on specific > nodes without having to physically add/remove DIMMs might be useful > to those that test application or benchmark performance on a > multi-node system in various memory configurations. >
hm, OK, thanks. It does sound a bit thin, and if we merge this then not only do we get a porkier kernel, we also get a new userspace interface which we're then locked into.
So I'm inclined to skip this change until we have a stronger need?
| |