From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755343Ab2LMBso (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:48:44 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:40310 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754724Ab2LMBsn (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:48:43 -0500 Message-ID: <50C933E9.2040707@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:48:25 -0800 From: Dave Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Davidlohr Bueso CC: Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org 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 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12121301-4834-0000-0000-0000017140F9 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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?