From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keith Busch Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] ACPI HMAT memory sysfs representation Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:51:41 -0700 Message-ID: <20181116155141.GA14630@localhost.localdomain> References: <20181114224902.12082-1-keith.busch@intel.com> <1ed406b2-b85f-8e02-1df0-7c39aa21eca9@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1ed406b2-b85f-8e02-1df0-7c39aa21eca9@arm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Anshuman Khandual Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Rafael Wysocki , Dave Hansen , Dan Williams List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:57:58AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > On 11/15/2018 04:19 AM, Keith Busch wrote: > > This series provides a new sysfs representation for heterogeneous > > system memory. > > > > The previous series that was specific to HMAT that this series was based > > on was last posted here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/13/968 > > > > Platforms may provide multiple types of cpu attached system memory. The > > memory ranges for each type may have different characteristics that > > applications may wish to know about when considering what node they want > > their memory allocated from. > > > > It had previously been difficult to describe these setups as memory > > rangers were generally lumped into the NUMA node of the CPUs. New > > platform attributes have been created and in use today that describe > > the more complex memory hierarchies that can be created. > > > > This series first creates new generic APIs under the kernel's node > > representation. These new APIs can be used to create links among local > > memory and compute nodes and export characteristics about the memory > > nodes. Documentation desribing the new representation are provided. > > > > Finally the series adds a kernel user for these new APIs from parsing > > the ACPI HMAT. > > Not able to see the patches from this series either on the list or on the > archive (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/15/331). The send-email split the cover-letter from the series, probably something I did. Series followed immediately after: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/15/332 > IIRC last time we discussed > about this and the concern which I raised was in absence of a broader NUMA > rework for multi attribute memory it might not a good idea to settle down > and freeze sysfs interface for the user space.