From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753059Ab2H2NMn (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:12:43 -0400 Received: from e23smtp03.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.145]:33826 "EHLO e23smtp03.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751567Ab2H2NMl (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:12:41 -0400 Message-ID: <503E14DC.3060507@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:40:52 +0530 From: "Naveen N. Rao" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borislav Petkov CC: tony.luck@intel.com, andi@firstfloor.org, ananth@in.ibm.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/mce: Move MCE sysfs attributes out of the per-cpu location References: <20120829074154.6755.98941.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20120829101302.GA26977@aftab.osrc.amd.com> <503DEE3C.6020406@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120829104018.GD26977@aftab.osrc.amd.com> In-Reply-To: <20120829104018.GD26977@aftab.osrc.amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 12082913-6102-0000-0000-00000223FDAD Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/29/2012 04:10 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 03:56:04PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: >> Hmmm.. Can't we just deprecate these? ;) Perhaps we can consider >> adding newer tunables in the right place. > > In case you haven't noticed yet: I'm all on your side. Yup, I know :) I had my doubts when I sent this patch (hence the RFC tag) and I was only wondering above if it'll be a good idea to limit such tunables going forward. We could force all _new_ MCE tunables to be global, except where they actually apply on a per-processor basis. > > But let me ask you this: these attributes grow to a large number with > a large number of cores but why is this a problem? We have a bunch of > redundant attributes in sysfs, so what? > > See what I mean? > Well, it's ugly and does not make much sense, as I'm sure you noticed. On a 10-core, 8-socket machine with HT, we'll end up with nearly a thousand such entries! I don't know how much resource this takes up (if any) and like you said, this may just be a "so what?", but I wanted to bring this up and see if we could/want to do anything about this. I'm certainly fine if we want to ignore this. Thanks, Naveen