[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/8] v5 De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:53:00 -0500
Nathan Fontenot <> wrote:

> This set of patches de-couples the idea that there is a single
> directory in sysfs for each memory section. The intent of the
> patches is to reduce the number of sysfs directories created to
> resolve a boot-time performance issue. On very large systems
> boot time are getting very long (as seen on powerpc hardware)
> due to the enormous number of sysfs directories being created.
> On a system with 1 TB of memory we create ~63,000 directories.
> For even larger systems boot times are being measured in hours.

And those "hours" are mainly due to this problem, I assume.

> This set of patches allows for each directory created in sysfs
> to cover more than one memory section. The default behavior for
> sysfs directory creation is the same, in that each directory
> represents a single memory section. A new file 'end_phys_index'
> in each directory contains the physical_id of the last memory
> section covered by the directory so that users can easily
> determine the memory section range of a directory.

What you're proposing appears to be a non-back-compatible
userspace-visible change. This is a big issue!

It's not an unresolvable issue, as this is a must-fix problem. But you
should tell us what your proposal is to prevent breakage of existing
installations. A Kconfig option would be good, but a boot-time kernel
command line option which selects the new format would be much better.

However you didn't mention this issue at all, and it's the most
important one.

> Updates for version 5 of the patchset include the following:
> Patch 4/8 Add mutex for add/remove of memory blocks
> - Define the mutex using DEFINE_MUTEX macro.
> Patch 8/8 Update memory-hotplug documentation
> - Add information concerning memory holes in phys_index..end_phys_index.

And you forgot to tell us how long those machines boot with the
patchset applied, which is the entire point of the patchset!

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-12 21:11    [W:0.133 / U:1.812 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site