[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/8] De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections
    On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 13:40 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
    > On 09/22/2010 10:20 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
    > > and phys_index's calculation needs to be:
    > >
    > > mem->start_phys_index * SECTION_SIZE / memory_block_size_bytes()
    > I'm not sure if I follow where you suggest using this formula. Is this
    > instead of what is used now, the base_memory_block_id() calculation?
    > If so, then I'm not sure it would work. The formula used in base_memory_block_id()
    > is done because the memory sections are not guaranteed to be added to the
    > memory block starting with the first section of the block.
    > If you meant somewhere else let me know.

    My point was just that if we change the "block_size_bytes" contents,
    then we have to scale down the "memoryXXXX/phys_index" by that same

    It *used* to be in numbers of SECTION_SIZE units, and I think it still

    - mem->start_phys_index = __section_nr(section);
    + mem->start_phys_index = base_memory_block_id(__section_nr(section));
    + mem->end_phys_index = mem->start_phys_index + sections_per_block - 1;

    but now it needs to be changed to be in memory_block_size_bytes() units,
    *NOT* SECTION_SIZE units.

    Let's say we have a system with 4 16MB sections starting at 0x0.
    Before, we would have:

    block_size_bytes: 16777216
    memory0/phys_index: 0
    memory1/phys_index: 1
    memory2/phys_index: 2
    memory3/phys_index: 3

    Now, we change memory_block_size_bytes() to be 32MB instead. We reduce
    the number of sections in half, and I think the right thing to get is:

    block_size_bytes: 33554432
    memory0/phys_index: 0
    memory1/phys_index: 1

    I think, with your code (as it stands in these patches, no fixes) that
    we'd instead get this:

    block_size_bytes: 16777216
    memory0/phys_index: 0
    memory1/phys_index: 2

    Without consulting "end_phys_index" (which isn't and can't be a part of
    the existing ABI), we'd think that we have two 16MB banks instead of

    -- Dave

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-09-22 21:01    [W:0.021 / U:0.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site