Date:	Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:34:08 -0500
From:	Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] v5 De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory
 sections

On 08/12/2010 02:08 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:53:00 -0500
> Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com> 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.

Yes, those hours are spent creating the sysfs directories for each
of the memory sections.

> 
>> 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.

This shouldn't break existing installations, unless an architecture chooses
to do so.  With my patch only the powerpc/pseries arch is updated such that
what is seen in userspace is different.

The default behavior is maintained for all architectures unless they define
their own version of memory_block_size_bytes().  The default definition of
this routine (defined as __weak in Patch 5/8) sets the memory block size
to the same size it currently is, and thus preserving the exisitng 1 sysfs
directory per memory section.  The only change that will be seen is a new
propery for memory section, end_phys_addr, which will have the same value
as the existing 'phys_addr' property.

> 
> 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!

Yes,  I am working on getting more time on our large systems to get
performance numbers with this patch.  I'll post them when I get them.

-Nathan
--
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