[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100701232634.GD13617@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:26:34 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [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@...e.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
--
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