From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx108.postini.com [74.125.245.108]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 673ED6B005A for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:48:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e32.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:48:41 -0700 Received: from d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.107]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA901FF0039 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:48:32 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id qBD1mcZw279818 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:48:38 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id qBD1mbIh024460 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:48:38 -0700 Message-ID: <50C933E9.2040707@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:48:25 -0800 From: Dave Hansen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add node physical memory range to sysfs References: <1354919696.2523.6.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20121207155125.d3117244.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <50C28720.3070205@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1355361524.5255.9.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> In-Reply-To: <1355361524.5255.9.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org 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, 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