From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755480Ab0E2AKg (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 May 2010 20:10:36 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:54880 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754698Ab0E2AKb (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 May 2010 20:10:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 17:05:26 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Cliff Wickman Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] x86, UV: BAU performance and error recovery Message-ID: <20100529000526.GA30938@suse.de> References: <4BFFEFA1.1020307@zytor.com> <20100528164725.GA29208@suse.de> <20100528194334.GA7707@sgi.com> <20100528222321.GC25513@suse.de> <20100528233623.GA11356@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100528233623.GA11356@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 06:36:23PM -0500, Cliff Wickman wrote: > /proc/sgi_uv/bau_tunables would be a read/write file to display and change > nine threshold and delay values for tuning the BAU driver. > > I like debugfs, except that a distro may not build the kernel with it > configured on. The tunables should be available as administrative > options on a customer kernel, not just as a development tool. All distros have debugfs turned on now, and mounted, due to the perf interface there, as well as a lot of other good debug information that is present. So you don't have to worry about that. > And in our case the distros are already building with other such writable > options in /proc/sgi_uv. We'd like to postpone a wholesale move of such > options (assuming there will be some better place) and stay with the existing > location for this release. So because some distro took a non-upstream patch, you want upstream to accept the patch despite it being the incorrect place to put such a file? Heh, you might want to rethink that... > I know we (the community) would like to move non-process info out of /proc. Yes. We also don't want new files added there that are not dealing with processes. > It seems to me that we need a similar filesystem for large and/or > administrative files. That's my perspective. I do not know of any other such "large administrative" file that needs to be added to the system at such a time, becides this one, do you? So please, just put it in debugfs. thanks, greg k-h