On Sat 10-06-17 22:58:21, Wei Yang wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > Hmm... one question about the memory_block behavior. > > > > In case one memory_block contains more than one memory section. > > If one section is "device zone", the whole memory_block is not visible > > in sysfs. Or until the whole memory_block is full, the sysfs is visible. > > > > Ok, I made a mistake here. The memory_block device is visible in this > case, while the sysfs link between memory_block and node is not visible > for the whole memory_block device. yes the behavior is quite messy > > BTW, current register_mem_sect_under_node() will create the sysfs > link between memory_block and node for each pfn, while actually > we only need one link between them. If I am correct. > > If you think it is fine, I would like to change this one to create the link > on section base. My longer term plan was to unify all the code to be either memory block or memory section oriented. The first sounds more logical from the user visible granularity point of view but there might be some corner cases which would require to use section based approach. I didn't have time to study that. If you want to play with that, feel free of course. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
