From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7CF6B01F1 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:34:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (d01relay01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.233]) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o7GEKvts030474 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:20:57 -0400 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o7GEYWO6242084 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:34:32 -0400 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o7GEY8KA020554 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:34:09 -0600 Message-ID: <4C694C60.6030207@austin.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:34:08 -0500 From: Nathan Fontenot MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] v5 De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections References: <4C60407C.2080608@austin.ibm.com> <20100812120816.e97d8b9e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20100812120816.e97d8b9e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Dave Hansen , Greg KH List-ID: On 08/12/2010 02:08 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:53:00 -0500 > Nathan Fontenot wrote: > >> This set of patches de-couples the idea that there is a single >> directory in sysfs for each memory section. The intent of the >> patches is to reduce the number of sysfs directories created to >> resolve a boot-time performance issue. On very large systems >> boot time are getting very long (as seen on powerpc hardware) >> due to the enormous number of sysfs directories being created. >> On a system with 1 TB of memory we create ~63,000 directories. >> For even larger systems boot times are being measured in hours. > > And those "hours" are mainly due to this problem, I assume. Yes, those hours are spent creating the sysfs directories for each of the memory sections. > >> This set of patches allows for each directory created in sysfs >> to cover more than one memory section. The default behavior for >> sysfs directory creation is the same, in that each directory >> represents a single memory section. A new file 'end_phys_index' >> in each directory contains the physical_id of the last memory >> section covered by the directory so that users can easily >> determine the memory section range of a directory. > > What you're proposing appears to be a non-back-compatible > userspace-visible change. This is a big issue! > > It's not an unresolvable issue, as this is a must-fix problem. But you > should tell us what your proposal is to prevent breakage of existing > installations. A Kconfig option would be good, but a boot-time kernel > command line option which selects the new format would be much better. This shouldn't break existing installations, unless an architecture chooses to do so. With my patch only the powerpc/pseries arch is updated such that what is seen in userspace is different. The default behavior is maintained for all architectures unless they define their own version of memory_block_size_bytes(). The default definition of this routine (defined as __weak in Patch 5/8) sets the memory block size to the same size it currently is, and thus preserving the exisitng 1 sysfs directory per memory section. The only change that will be seen is a new propery for memory section, end_phys_addr, which will have the same value as the existing 'phys_addr' property. > > However you didn't mention this issue at all, and it's the most > important one. > > >> Updates for version 5 of the patchset include the following: >> >> Patch 4/8 Add mutex for add/remove of memory blocks >> - Define the mutex using DEFINE_MUTEX macro. >> >> Patch 8/8 Update memory-hotplug documentation >> - Add information concerning memory holes in phys_index..end_phys_index. > > And you forgot to tell us how long those machines boot with the > patchset applied, which is the entire point of the patchset! Yes, I am working on getting more time on our large systems to get performance numbers with this patch. I'll post them when I get them. -Nathan -- 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