Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:30:57 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] memory hotplug disable boot option |
| |
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:17:35 -0500 Nathan Fontenot <nfont@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 07:31 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 08:47:55 -0700 > > Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote: > >>> and adding a scalable interface for large scale machines ? > >>> I'd like to consider something.. > >> > >> Dynamically changing the layout on big memory boxes makes sense to me, > >> how about you? > >> > > > > like this ? > > == > > boot option: > > memory_sysfs_layout=compact > > memory_sysfs_layout=auto (default) > > memory_sysfs_layout=full > > > > Considering briefly, how about this compact layout ? > > > > /sys/devices/system/memory/: > > list, hide, show, memoryX... > > > > list: // show available memory index list. > > #cat list > > 0 1 2 ....10000... > > > > show: //an interface to enable the interface. > > #echo INDEX > memory_index > > will create memoryINDEX diretory. > > > > hide: //an interface to hide the interface. > > #echo INDEX > memory_hide > > will remove memoryINDEX sysfs directory. > > > > > > In compact mode, all memoryX interface are hidden at boot. > > In full mode, all memoryX interaface are shown. > > The Boot option just affects status at boot. If users want, he can make > > all memory sysfs in shown state. > > Do we need to make something as complicated as dynamically adding and removing > the sysfs directories? Why not a compact layout that just takes the files > that currently reside in the memoryXX dirs and move them up to the memory > directory. This would be state (which should probably be split into an > 'online' and 'offline' file), removable, phys_index, and phys_device. > I've considered several patterns.
with 4096 bytes buffer of sysfs, "printting bitmap" just covers small amount of sections even with smart ASCII format to show contiguous range as a chunk. That's my concern. (and 'list' file in above example is impossible to impelement.)
If I can use rmdir/mkdir interface, it's much simple rather than above "echo". But it seems impossible. Because we have memory information in /proc/iomem already, I think hide/show interface (instead of mkdir/rmdir) is not very bad.
If you can implement highly scalable interface, please. I just stop dreaming and ack yours.
Thanks, -Kame
| |