On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:49:53AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >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 This means the granularity of hotplug is memory_block instead of mem_section? While I see the alignment check of add_memory_resource() is SECTION size. >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. Yep, I am really want to help, while these inter-connected concepts makes me confused. I need to learn more on these. >-- >Michal Hocko >SUSE Labs -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
