From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com (e4.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e4.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E929B71C0 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 01:17:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (d01relay07.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.147]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o8SF2H6D027981 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:02:17 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o8SFHhOS1900664 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:17:43 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o8SFHgjY018272 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:17:43 -0300 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] v2 De-Couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections From: Dave Hansen To: Avi Kivity In-Reply-To: <4CA1E338.6070201@redhat.com> References: <4CA0EBEB.1030204@austin.ibm.com> <4CA1E338.6070201@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ANSI_X3.4-1968" Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:17:36 -0700 Message-ID: <1285687056.19976.6155.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 14:44 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Why not update sysfs directory creation to be fast, for example by using > an rbtree instead of a linked list. This fixes an implementation > problem in the kernel instead of working around it and creating a new ABI. > > New ABIs mean old tools won't work, and new tools need to understand > both ABIs. Just to be clear _these_ patches do not change the existing ABI. They do add a new ABI: the end_phys_index file. But, it is completely redundant at the moment. It could be taken out of these patches. That said, fixing the directory creation speed is probably a worthwhile endeavor too. -- Dave