From: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 04/10] node: Link memory nodes to their compute nodes
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:09:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190206230953.GB30221@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0g4ouD+9YYPSkoN7CRLTXYymeCaVkYNzm6Q6gGdNgJbuQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 04:17:09PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > When you use a "raw" kobject then userspace tools do not see the devices
> > and attributes in libraries like udev.
>
> And why would they need it in this particular case?
>
> > So unless userspace does not care about this at all,
>
> Which I think is the case here, isn't it?
>
> > you should use a 'struct device' where ever
> > possible. The memory "savings" usually just isn't worth it unless you
> > have a _lot_ of objects being created here.
> >
> > Who is going to use all of this new information?
>
> Somebody who wants to know how the memory in the system is laid out AFAICS.
Yes, this is for user space to make informed decisions about where it
wants to allocate/relocate hot and cold data with respect to particular
compute domains. So user space should care about these attributes,
and they won't always be static when memory hotplug support for these
attributes is added.
Does that change anything, or still recommending kobject? I don't have a
strong opinion either way and have both options coded and ready to
submit new version once I know which direction is most acceptable.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-06 23:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-24 23:07 [PATCHv5 00/10] Heterogeneuos memory node attributes Keith Busch
2019-01-24 23:07 ` [PATCHv5 01/10] acpi: Create subtable parsing infrastructure Keith Busch
2019-01-24 23:07 ` [PATCHv5 02/10] acpi: Add HMAT to generic parsing tables Keith Busch
2019-01-24 23:07 ` [PATCHv5 03/10] acpi/hmat: Parse and report heterogeneous memory Keith Busch
2019-02-05 12:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-02-06 12:28 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-06 16:06 ` Keith Busch
2019-02-06 16:39 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-01-24 23:07 ` [PATCHv5 04/10] node: Link memory nodes to their compute nodes Keith Busch
2019-02-05 12:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-02-05 14:48 ` Keith Busch
2019-02-05 14:52 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-02-05 15:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-02-06 23:09 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2019-02-06 23:48 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-02-06 12:26 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-06 16:12 ` Keith Busch
2019-02-06 16:47 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-07 11:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-01-24 23:07 ` [PATCHv5 05/10] acpi/hmat: Register processor domain to its memory Keith Busch
2019-02-06 12:26 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-01-24 23:07 ` [PATCHv5 06/10] node: Add heterogenous memory access attributes Keith Busch
2019-01-24 23:07 ` [PATCHv5 07/10] acpi/hmat: Register performance attributes Keith Busch
2019-02-06 12:24 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-01-24 23:07 ` [PATCHv5 08/10] node: Add memory caching attributes Keith Busch
2019-02-06 12:24 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-01-24 23:07 ` [PATCHv5 09/10] acpi/hmat: Register memory side cache attributes Keith Busch
2019-02-06 12:17 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-01-24 23:07 ` [PATCHv5 10/10] doc/mm: New documentation for memory performance Keith Busch
2019-02-06 10:45 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-06 16:25 ` Keith Busch
2019-01-28 14:00 ` [PATCHv5 00/10] Heterogeneuos memory node attributes Michal Hocko
2019-02-06 12:31 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-06 17:19 ` Keith Busch
2019-02-06 17:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-07 9:53 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-07 15:08 ` Keith Busch
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190206230953.GB30221@localhost.localdomain \
--to=keith.busch@intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).