From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Rick Lindsley <ricklind@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:15:19 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ac4a2c133da21856439f907989c3f9d781857cbf.camel@themaw.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200623231348.GD13061@mtj.duckdns.org>
On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 19:13 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Rick.
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 02:22:34PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> > > I don't know. The above highlights the absurdity of the approach
> > > itself to
> > > me. You seem to be aware of it too in writing: 250,000 "devices".
> >
> > Just because it is absurd doesn't mean it wasn't built that way :)
> >
> > I agree, and I'm trying to influence the next hardware design.
> > However,
>
> I'm not saying that the hardware should not segment things into
> however many
> pieces that it wants / needs to. That part is fine.
>
> > what's already out there is memory units that must be accessed in
> > 256MB
> > blocks. If you want to remove/add a GB, that's really 4 blocks of
> > memory
> > you're manipulating, to the hardware. Those blocks have to be
> > registered
> > and recognized by the kernel for that to work.
>
> The problem is fitting that into an interface which wholly doesn't
> fit that
> particular requirement. It's not that difficult to imagine different
> ways to
> represent however many memory slots, right? It'd take work to make
> sure that
> integrates well with whatever tooling or use cases but once done this
> particular problem will be resolved permanently and the whole thing
> will
> look a lot less silly. Wouldn't that be better?
Well, no, I am finding it difficult to imagine different ways to
represent this but perhaps that's because I'm blinker eyed on what
a solution might look like because of my file system focus.
Can "anyone" throw out some ideas with a little more detail than we
have had so far so we can maybe start to formulate an actual plan of
what needs to be done.
Ian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-25 8:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-17 7:37 [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement Ian Kent
2020-06-17 7:37 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] kernfs: switch kernfs to use an rwsem Ian Kent
2020-06-17 7:37 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] kernfs: move revalidate to be near lookup Ian Kent
2020-06-17 7:37 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] kernfs: improve kernfs path resolution Ian Kent
2020-06-17 7:38 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] kernfs: use revision to identify directory node changes Ian Kent
2020-06-17 7:38 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] kernfs: refactor attr locking Ian Kent
2020-06-17 7:38 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] kernfs: make attr_mutex a local kernfs node lock Ian Kent
2020-06-19 15:38 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement Tejun Heo
2020-06-19 20:41 ` Rick Lindsley
2020-06-19 22:23 ` Tejun Heo
2020-06-20 2:44 ` Rick Lindsley
2020-06-22 17:53 ` Tejun Heo
2020-06-22 21:22 ` Rick Lindsley
2020-06-23 23:13 ` Tejun Heo
2020-06-24 9:04 ` Rick Lindsley
2020-06-24 9:27 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-24 13:19 ` Tejun Heo
2020-06-25 8:15 ` Ian Kent [this message]
2020-06-25 9:43 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-26 0:19 ` Ian Kent
2020-06-21 4:55 ` Ian Kent
2020-06-22 17:48 ` Tejun Heo
2020-06-22 18:03 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-22 21:27 ` Rick Lindsley
2020-06-23 5:21 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-23 5:09 ` Ian Kent
2020-06-23 6:02 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-23 8:01 ` Ian Kent
2020-06-23 8:29 ` Ian Kent
2020-06-23 11:49 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-23 9:33 ` Rick Lindsley
2020-06-23 11:45 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-06-23 22:55 ` Rick Lindsley
2020-06-23 11:51 ` Ian Kent
2020-06-21 3:21 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-10 16:44 ` Fox Chen
2020-12-11 2:01 ` [PATCH " Ian Kent
2020-12-11 2:17 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-13 3:46 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-14 6:14 ` Fox Chen
2020-12-14 13:30 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-15 8:33 ` Fox Chen
2020-12-15 12:59 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-17 4:46 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-17 8:54 ` Fox Chen
2020-12-17 10:09 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-17 11:09 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-17 11:48 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-17 15:14 ` Tejun Heo
2020-12-18 7:36 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-18 8:01 ` Fox Chen
2020-12-18 11:21 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-18 13:20 ` Fox Chen
2020-12-19 0:53 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-19 7:47 ` Fox Chen
2020-12-22 2:17 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-18 14:59 ` Tejun Heo
2020-12-19 7:08 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-19 16:23 ` Tejun Heo
2020-12-19 23:52 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-20 1:37 ` Ian Kent
2020-12-21 9:28 ` Fox Chen
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=ac4a2c133da21856439f907989c3f9d781857cbf.camel@themaw.net \
--to=raven@themaw.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=ricklind@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).