Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932103Ab0F2QDN (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:03:13 -0400 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:56898 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756169Ab0F2QDL (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:03:11 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory hotplug disable boot option From: Dave Hansen To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Greg KH , Nathan Fontenot , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" In-Reply-To: <20100629115232.38BC.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20100628154455.GA13918@suse.de> <1277769867.8354.531.camel@nimitz> <20100629115232.38BC.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ANSI_X3.4-1968" Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:03:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1277827384.8354.3413.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1618 Lines: 33 On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 11:56 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 08:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > The directories being created are the standard directories, one for each of the memory > > > > sections present at boot. I think the most used files in each of these directories > > > > is the state and removable file used to do memory hotplug. > > > > > > And perhaps we shouldn't really be creating so many directories? Why > > > not work with the memory hotplug developers to change their interface to > > > not abuse sysfs in such a manner? > > > > Heh, it wasn't abuse until we got this much memory. But, I think this > > one is pretty much 100% my fault. > > > > Nathan, I think the right fix here is probably to untie sysfs from the > > sections a bit. We should be able to have sysfs dirs that represent > > more than one contiguous SECTION_SIZE area of memory. > > Why do we need abi breakage? Yourself talked about we guess ppc don't > actually need 16MB section. I think IBM folks have to confirm it. > If our guessing is correct, the firmware fixing is only necessary. >From the mouth of the kernel dumbass who coded this up: it's not the firmware's fault. We shouldn't punt this to them, and the proper fix _isn't_ in the firmware, plus they may have other more fundamental reasons to keep the LMB sizes what they are. -- Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/