Re: [PATCH v3 updated] mm/demotion: Expose memory tier details via sysfs

Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-09-02T06:32:30Z

On 9/2/22 11:42 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/2/22 11:10 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/2/22 10:39 AM, Wei Xu wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 5:33 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/1/22 12:31 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This patch adds /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/ where all memory tier
>>>>>>>>> related details can be found. All allocated memory tiers will be listed
>>>>>>>>> there as /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tierN/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The nodes which are part of a specific memory tier can be listed via
>>>>>>>>> /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tierN/nodes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think "memory_tier" is a better subsystem/bus name than
>>>>>>>> memory_tiering. Because we have a set of memory_tierN devices inside.
>>>>>>>> "memory_tier" sounds more natural. I know this is subjective, just my
>>>>>>>> preference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I missed replying to this earlier. I will keep memory_tiering as subsystem name in v4
>>>> because we would want it to a susbsystem where all memory tiering related details can be found
>>>> including memory type in the future. This is as per discussion
>>>>
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u9TKbHGztAF=r-io3gkX7gorUunS2UfstudCWuihrA=0g@mail.gmail.com
>>>
>>> I don't think that it's a good idea to mix 2 types of devices in one
>>> subsystem (bus). If my understanding were correct, that breaks the
>>> driver core convention.
>>>
>>
>> All these are virtual devices .I am not sure i follow what you mean by 2 types of devices.
>> memory_tiering is a subsystem that represents all the details w.r.t memory tiering. It shows
>> details of memory tiers and can possibly contain details of different memory types .
>
> IMHO, memory_tier and memory_type are 2 kind of devices. They have
> almost totally different attributes (sysfs file). So, we should create
> 2 buses for them. Each has its own attribute group. "virtual" itself
> isn't a subsystem.

Considering both the details are related to memory tiering, wouldn't it be much simpler we consolidate
them within the same subdirectory? I am still not clear why you are suggesting they need to be in different
sysfs hierarchy. It doesn't break any driver core convention as you mentioned earlier.

/sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tierN
/sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_typeN

-aneesh