[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1223916035.29877.10.camel@nimitz>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:40:35 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Gary Hade <garyhade@...ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, y-goto@...fujitsu.com,
pbadari@...ibm.com, mel@....ul.ie, lcm@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu,
greg@...ah.com, nish.aravamudan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [REPOST] mm: show node to memory section
relationship with symlinks in sysfs
On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 09:34 -0700, Gary Hade wrote:
> I understand your concerns about adding possibly frivolous interfaces
> but in this case we are simply eliminating a very obvious hole in the
> existing set of memory hot-add/remove interfaces. In general, it
> makes absolutely no sense to provide a resource add/remove mechanism
> without telling the user where the resource is physically located.
Does it help we export the phys_index (basically the section number) as
part of the section directory?
I don't think we export the physical memory ranges of NUMA nodes. But,
if we did that as well, it would allow userspace to do this association
without troubling the kernel with maintaining it.
-- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists