From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:14:47 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] Documentation: add node files to sysfs ABI Message-ID: <20080422051447.GI21993@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080411234449.GE19078@us.ibm.com> <20080411234712.GF19078@us.ibm.com> <20080411234743.GG19078@us.ibm.com> <20080411234913.GH19078@us.ibm.com> <20080411235648.GA13276@suse.de> <20080412094118.GA7708@wotan.suse.de> <20080413034136.GA22686@suse.de> <20080414210506.GA6350@us.ibm.com> <20080417231617.GA18815@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan , Greg KH , wli@holomorphy.com, agl@us.ibm.com, luick@cray.com, Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 04:22:17PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > > Do you see a particular more-sysfs-way here, Greg? > > > > So I've received no comments yet? Perhaps I should leave things the way > > they are (per-node files in /sys/devices/system/node) and add > > nr_hugepages to /sys/kernel? > > The strange location of the node directories has always irked me. > > > > Do we want to put it in a subdirectory of /sys/kernel? What should the > > subdir be called? "hugetlb" (refers to the implementation?) or > > "hugepages"? > > How about: > > /sys/kernel/node/ ? I don't like /sys/kernel/node :P Under /sys/kernel, we should have parameters to set and query various kernel functionality. Control of the kernel software implementation. I think this is pretty well agreed (although there are maybe grey areas I guess) So anyway, underneath that directory, we should have more subdirectories grouping subsystems or sumilar functionality. We aren't tuning node, but hugepages subsystem. /sys/kernel/huge{tlb|pages}/ Under that directory could be global settings as well as per node settings or subdirectories and so on. The layout should be similar to /proc/sys/* IMO. Actually it should be much neater since we have some hindsight, but unfortunately it is looking like it is actually messier ;) Let's really try to put some thought into new sysfs locations. Not just will it work, but is it logical and will it work tomorrow... -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org