lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] memory hotplug disable boot option
    On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 09:31:30AM +0900, 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.

    Ick, that can get confusing very quickly, and not really solve any of
    your root problems, right?

    > 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.
    >
    > At hot-add event (via acpi) or probe-event, newly created memory section
    > should be start from "shown" mode. hotplug scirpt can hide it after online.
    >
    > At hot-remove, the users has to offline memory before hotplug. He'll has
    > to do check list and show interface.
    >
    > I think this change is not very difficult technically but can this kind of
    > interface be allowed ?

    Not really, I don't like it.

    Why not just simplify what you currently have to not use so many
    directories and files?

    And maybe, this doesn't belong in sysfs at all...

    thanks,

    greg k-h


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-07-02 01:33    [W:0.318 / U:0.620 seconds]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean