linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: add node physical memory range to sysfs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <50C933E9.2040707@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:48:25 -0800
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add node physical memory range to sysfs

On 12/12/2012 05:18 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 16:17 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> Seems like the better way to do this would be to expose the DIMMs
>> themselves in some way, and then map _those_ back to a node.
> 
> Good point, and from a DIMM perspective, I agree, and will look into
> this. However, IMHO, having the range of physical addresses for every
> node still provides valuable information, from a NUMA point of view. For
> example, dealing with node related e820 mappings.

But if we went and did it per-DIMM (showing which physical addresses and
NUMA nodes a DIMM maps to), wouldn't that be redundant with this
proposed interface?

How do you plan to use this in practice, btw?

--
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/