Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 9/2/22 11:42 AM, Huang, Ying wrote: >> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> On 9/2/22 11:10 AM, Huang, Ying wrote: >>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/2/22 10:39 AM, Wei Xu wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 5:33 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/1/22 12:31 PM, Huang, Ying wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This patch adds /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/ where all memory tier >>>>>>>>>> related details can be found. All allocated memory tiers will be listed >>>>>>>>>> there as /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tierN/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The nodes which are part of a specific memory tier can be listed via >>>>>>>>>> /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tierN/nodes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think "memory_tier" is a better subsystem/bus name than >>>>>>>>> memory_tiering. Because we have a set of memory_tierN devices inside. >>>>>>>>> "memory_tier" sounds more natural. I know this is subjective, just my >>>>>>>>> preference. >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I missed replying to this earlier. I will keep memory_tiering as subsystem name in v4 >>>>> because we would want it to a susbsystem where all memory tiering related details can be found >>>>> including memory type in the future. This is as per discussion >>>>> >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u9TKbHGztAF=r-io3gkX7gorUunS2UfstudCWuihrA=0g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> >>>> I don't think that it's a good idea to mix 2 types of devices in one >>>> subsystem (bus). If my understanding were correct, that breaks the >>>> driver core convention. >>>> >>> >>> All these are virtual devices .I am not sure i follow what you mean by 2 types of devices. >>> memory_tiering is a subsystem that represents all the details w.r.t memory tiering. It shows >>> details of memory tiers and can possibly contain details of different memory types . >> >> IMHO, memory_tier and memory_type are 2 kind of devices. They have >> almost totally different attributes (sysfs file). So, we should create >> 2 buses for them. Each has its own attribute group. "virtual" itself >> isn't a subsystem. > > Considering both the details are related to memory tiering, wouldn't it be much simpler we consolidate > them within the same subdirectory? I am still not clear why you are suggesting they need to be in different > sysfs hierarchy. It doesn't break any driver core convention as you mentioned earlier. > > /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tierN > /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_typeN I think we should add /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tier/memory_tierN /sys/devices/virtual/memory_type/memory_typeN I don't think this is complex. Devices of same bus/subsystem should have mostly same attributes. This is my understanding of driver core convention. Best Regards, Huang, Ying
