From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0FDA6B004A for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:20:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o8MFEt76016413 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:14:55 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o8MFK2GD216922 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:20:02 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o8MFK1KR008374 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:20:02 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <4C9A0F8F.2030409@austin.ibm.com> References: <4C9A0F8F.2030409@austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ANSI_X3.4-1968" Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:20:00 -0700 Message-ID: <1285168800.3292.5228.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nathan Fontenot Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Greg KH , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: 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(), and phys_index's calculation needs to be: mem->start_phys_index * SECTION_SIZE / memory_block_size_bytes() 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