From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Greg KH" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Jan Höppner" <hoeppner@linux.ibm.com>,
"Heiko Carstens" <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Ways to deprecate /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryX/phys_device ?
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:49:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a7d02345-2195-3092-a368-ca3209e2c93e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200922155611.379373f7@thinkpad>
>> There were once RFC patches to make use of it in ACPI, but it could be
>> solved using different interfaces [1].
>>
>>
>> While I'd love to rip it out completely, I think it would break old
>> lsmem/chmem completely - and I assume that's not acceptable. I was
>> wondering what would be considered safe to do now/in the future:
>>
>> 1. Make it always return 0 (just as if "sclp.rzm" would be set to 0 on
>> s390x). This will make old lsmem/chmem behave differently after
>> switching to a new kernel, like if sclp.rzm would not be set by HW -
>> AFAIU, it will assume all memory is in a single memory increment. Do we
>> care?
>
> No, at least not until that kernel change would be backported to some
> old distribution level where we still use lsmem/chmem from s390-tools.
> Given that this is just some clean-up w/o any functional benefit, and
> hopefully w/o any negative impact, I think we can safely assume that no
> distributor will do that "just for fun".
>
> Even if there would be good reasons for backports, then I guess we also
> have good reasons for backporting / switching to the util-linux version
> of lsmem / chmem for such distribution levels. Alternatively, adjust the
> s390-tools lsmem / chmem there.
>
> But I would rather "rip it out completely" than just return 0. You'd
> need some lsmem / chmem changes anyway, at least in case this would
> ever be backported.
Thanks for your input Gerald.
So unless people would be running shiny new kernels on older
distributions it shouldn't be a problem (and I don't think we care too
much about something like that). I don't expect something like that to
get backported - there is absolutely no reason to do so IMHO.
>
>> 2. Restrict it to s390x only. It always returned 0 on other
>> architectures, I was not able to find any user.
>>
>> I think 2 should be safe to do (never used on other archs). I do wonder
>> what the feelings are about 1.
>
> Please don't add any s390-specific workarounds here, that does not
> really sound like a clean-up, rather the opposite.
People seem to have different opinions here. I'm happy as long as we can
get rid of it (either now, or in the future with a new model).
>
> That being said, I do not really see the benefit of this change at
> all. As Michal mentioned, there really should be some more fundamental
> change. And from the rest of this thread, it also seems that phys_device
> usage might not be the biggest issue here.
>
As I already expressed, I am more of a friend of small, incremental
changes than having a single big world switch where everything will be
shiny and perfect.
(Deprecating it now - in any way - stops any new users from appearing -
both, in the kernel and from user space - eventually making the big
world switch later a little easier because there is one thing less that
vanished)
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-25 14:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-10 10:20 Ways to deprecate /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryX/phys_device ? David Hildenbrand
2020-09-10 20:00 ` Dave Hansen
2020-09-10 20:31 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-11 7:20 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-11 8:09 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-11 9:12 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-11 10:09 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-11 19:24 ` Dave Hansen
2020-09-11 19:35 ` Luck, Tony
2020-09-11 19:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-11 20:09 ` Luck, Tony
2020-09-11 20:49 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-14 11:24 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-14 12:14 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-10 20:57 ` Dave Hansen
2020-09-22 13:56 ` Gerald Schaefer
2020-09-25 14:49 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2020-09-25 15:00 ` Greg KH
2020-09-25 15:05 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-25 15:39 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-25 15:47 ` David Hildenbrand
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=a7d02345-2195-3092-a368-ca3209e2c93e@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hoeppner@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@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).