lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/6] Backing Store for sysfs
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 01:29:20PM -0700, Patrick Mochel wrote:
>
> Uh, that's about the same thing I suggested, though probably not as
> concisely:
>
> "As I said before, I don't know the right solution, but the directions to
> look in are related to attribute groups. Attributes definitely consume the
> most amount of memory (as opposed to the kobject hierachy), so delaying
> their creation would help, hopefully without making the interface too
> awkward.

Ok.. attributes do consume maximum in sysfs. In the system I mentioned
leaf dentries are about 65% of the total.

> You can also use the assumption that an attribute group exists for all the
> kobjects in a kset, and that a kobject knows what kset it belongs to. And

That's not correct... kobject corresponding to /sys/block/hda/queue
doesnot know which kset it belongs to and what are its attributes. Same
for /sys/block/hda/queue/iosched.

> that eventually, all attributes should be added as part of an attribute
> group.."
>
> Attributes are the leaf entries, and they don't need to always exist. But,
> you have easy access to them via the attribute groups of the ksets the
> kobjects belong to.
>

Having backing store just for leaf dentries should be fine. But there is
_no_ easy access for attributes. For this also I see some data change required
as of now. The reasons are
- not all kobjects belong to a kset. For example, /sys/block/hda/queue
- not all ksets have attribute groups

I don't see any generic rule for finding attributes or attribute group
of a kobject. Such random-ness forced me to add new fields to kobject. The
sysfs picture doesnot show the kset-kobject relationship. For example
kobject corresponding /sys/devices/system does not belong to devices_subsystem.
and it is not in the devices_subsys->list. There was no other way except to
build new hierarchy info in the kobject.

What are people's opinion about the way I have linked attributes and
attributes_group to the kobject. I could not link "struct attribute" and
"struct attriubte_group" directly to kobject because these are generally
statically alocated and many kobjects will have the same attribute structure.
and are asigned to multiple kobjects

Thanks
Maneesh
--
Maneesh Soni
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India
email: maneesh@in.ibm.com
Phone: 91-80-5044999 Fax: 91-80-5268553
T/L : 9243696
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans