From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (e34.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e34.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB092B70E3 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 04:41:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o8MIVfur018775 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:31:41 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id o8MIf1Db243198 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:41:01 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o8MIf0di012472 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:41:01 -0600 Message-ID: <4C9A4DBB.6080500@austin.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:40:59 -0500 From: Nathan Fontenot MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections References: <4C9A0F8F.2030409@austin.ibm.com> <1285168800.3292.5228.camel@nimitz> In-Reply-To: <1285168800.3292.5228.camel@nimitz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 09/22/2010 10:20 AM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 09:15 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote: >> For architectures that define their own version of this routine, >> as is done for powerpc in this patchset, the view in userspace >> would change such that each memoryXXX directory would span >> multiple memory sections. The number of sections spanned would >> depend on the value reported by memory_block_size_bytes. >> >> In both cases a new file 'end_phys_index' is created in each >> memoryXXX directory. This file will contain the physical id >> of the last memory section covered by the sysfs directory. For >> the default case, the value in 'end_phys_index' will be the same >> as in the existing 'phys_index' file. > > Hi Nathan, > > There's one bit missing here, I think. > > "block_size_bytes" today means two things today: > 1. the SECTION_SIZE from sparsemem > 2. the size covered by each memoryXXXX directory > > SECTION_SIZE isn't exposed to userspace, but the memoryXXXX directories > are. You've done all of the heavy lifting here to make sure that the > memory directories are no longer bound to SECTION_SIZE, but you've also > broken the assumption that _each_ directory covers "block_size_bytes". > > I think it's fairly simple to fix. block_size_bytes() needs to return > memory_block_size_bytes(), yes, missed that. I will update the patch set to include this. > and phys_index's calculation needs to be: > > mem->start_phys_index * SECTION_SIZE / memory_block_size_bytes() I'm not sure if I follow where you suggest using this formula. Is this instead of what is used now, the base_memory_block_id() calculation? If so, then I'm not sure it would work. The formula used in base_memory_block_id() is done because the memory sections are not guaranteed to be added to the memory block starting with the first section of the block. If you meant somewhere else let me know. -Nathan > > That way, to userspace, it just looks like before, but with a larger > SECTION_SIZE. Doing that preserves the ABI pretty nicely, I believe. > > -- Dave > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754716Ab0IVSlF (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:41:05 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:36660 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753701Ab0IVSlC (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:41:02 -0400 Message-ID: <4C9A4DBB.6080500@austin.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:40:59 -0500 From: Nathan Fontenot User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hansen CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Greg KH , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections References: <4C9A0F8F.2030409@austin.ibm.com> <1285168800.3292.5228.camel@nimitz> In-Reply-To: <1285168800.3292.5228.camel@nimitz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/22/2010 10:20 AM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 09:15 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote: >> For architectures that define their own version of this routine, >> as is done for powerpc in this patchset, the view in userspace >> would change such that each memoryXXX directory would span >> multiple memory sections. The number of sections spanned would >> depend on the value reported by memory_block_size_bytes. >> >> In both cases a new file 'end_phys_index' is created in each >> memoryXXX directory. This file will contain the physical id >> of the last memory section covered by the sysfs directory. For >> the default case, the value in 'end_phys_index' will be the same >> as in the existing 'phys_index' file. > > Hi Nathan, > > There's one bit missing here, I think. > > "block_size_bytes" today means two things today: > 1. the SECTION_SIZE from sparsemem > 2. the size covered by each memoryXXXX directory > > SECTION_SIZE isn't exposed to userspace, but the memoryXXXX directories > are. You've done all of the heavy lifting here to make sure that the > memory directories are no longer bound to SECTION_SIZE, but you've also > broken the assumption that _each_ directory covers "block_size_bytes". > > I think it's fairly simple to fix. block_size_bytes() needs to return > memory_block_size_bytes(), yes, missed that. I will update the patch set to include this. > and phys_index's calculation needs to be: > > mem->start_phys_index * SECTION_SIZE / memory_block_size_bytes() I'm not sure if I follow where you suggest using this formula. Is this instead of what is used now, the base_memory_block_id() calculation? If so, then I'm not sure it would work. The formula used in base_memory_block_id() is done because the memory sections are not guaranteed to be added to the memory block starting with the first section of the block. If you meant somewhere else let me know. -Nathan > > That way, to userspace, it just looks like before, but with a larger > SECTION_SIZE. Doing that preserves the ABI pretty nicely, I believe. > > -- Dave > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5958C6B0047 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:41:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by e39.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o8MIUVmc008059 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:30:31 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o8MIf1AO155246 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:41:01 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o8MIf0de012472 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:41:01 -0600 Message-ID: <4C9A4DBB.6080500@austin.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:40:59 -0500 From: Nathan Fontenot MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections References: <4C9A0F8F.2030409@austin.ibm.com> <1285168800.3292.5228.camel@nimitz> In-Reply-To: <1285168800.3292.5228.camel@nimitz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Dave Hansen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Greg KH , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: On 09/22/2010 10:20 AM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 09:15 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote: >> For architectures that define their own version of this routine, >> as is done for powerpc in this patchset, the view in userspace >> would change such that each memoryXXX directory would span >> multiple memory sections. The number of sections spanned would >> depend on the value reported by memory_block_size_bytes. >> >> In both cases a new file 'end_phys_index' is created in each >> memoryXXX directory. This file will contain the physical id >> of the last memory section covered by the sysfs directory. For >> the default case, the value in 'end_phys_index' will be the same >> as in the existing 'phys_index' file. > > Hi Nathan, > > There's one bit missing here, I think. > > "block_size_bytes" today means two things today: > 1. the SECTION_SIZE from sparsemem > 2. the size covered by each memoryXXXX directory > > SECTION_SIZE isn't exposed to userspace, but the memoryXXXX directories > are. You've done all of the heavy lifting here to make sure that the > memory directories are no longer bound to SECTION_SIZE, but you've also > broken the assumption that _each_ directory covers "block_size_bytes". > > I think it's fairly simple to fix. block_size_bytes() needs to return > memory_block_size_bytes(), yes, missed that. I will update the patch set to include this. > and phys_index's calculation needs to be: > > mem->start_phys_index * SECTION_SIZE / memory_block_size_bytes() I'm not sure if I follow where you suggest using this formula. Is this instead of what is used now, the base_memory_block_id() calculation? If so, then I'm not sure it would work. The formula used in base_memory_block_id() is done because the memory sections are not guaranteed to be added to the memory block starting with the first section of the block. If you meant somewhere else let me know. -Nathan > > That way, to userspace, it just looks like before, but with a larger > SECTION_SIZE. Doing that preserves the ABI pretty nicely, I believe. > > -- Dave > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org