[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250403042552.1116-1-rakie.kim@sk.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:25:42 +0900
From: Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
joshua.hahnjy@...il.com,
ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com,
david@...hat.com,
Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
kernel_team@...ynix.com,
honggyu.kim@...com,
yunjeong.mun@...com,
rakie.kim@...com,
gourry@...rry.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mm/mempolicy: Support dynamic sysfs updates for weighted interleave
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 09:33:51 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> Rakie Kim wrote:
> > Previously, the weighted interleave sysfs structure was statically
> > managed, preventing dynamic updates when nodes were added or removed.
> >
> > This patch restructures the weighted interleave sysfs to support
> > dynamic insertion and deletion. The sysfs that was part of
> > the 'weighted_interleave_group' is now globally accessible,
> > allowing external access to that sysfs.
> >
> > With this change, sysfs management for weighted interleave is
> > more flexible, supporting hotplug events and runtime updates
> > more effectively.
>
> I understand the urge to try to make a general case for a patch, but it
> is better to state the explicit reason especially when someone is later
> reading the history and may not realize that this is part of a series.
>
> So instead of making claims like "this is more flexible / more effective
> for runtime updates", state that motivation explicitly. Something like:
>
> "In preparation for enabling weighted-interleave sysfs attributes to
> react to node-online/offline events, introduce sysfs_wi_node_add() and
> sysfs_wi_node_delete() helpers to dynamically manage the
> weighted-interleave attributes.
>
> A follow-on patch registers a memory-hotplug notifier to use these
> helpers, for now just refactor the current "publish all possible node"
> approach to use sysfs_wi_node_{add,delete}()."
>
Hi Dan Williams,
Thank you for your response regarding this patch.
First, I would like to mention that this version is v3, and the latest
version is v5:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250402014906.1086-1-rakie.kim@sk.com/
However, I believe that all of your suggestions should also apply to v5,
and I completely agree with your feedback.
I will incorporate the improvements you proposed and prepare v6
accordingly.
Rakie
Powered by blists - more mailing lists