From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D945AC433EF for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:15:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 43DFE6B0071; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 11:15:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3EEAF6B0073; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 11:15:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 28FF46B0074; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 11:15:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.26]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3316B0071 for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 11:15:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4FE412116C for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:15:26 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79290515052.03.62E732F Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595B2160013 for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:15:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94A4FB80D18; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:15:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05176C340EC; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:15:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1648394123; bh=Hl0LXWoiLzrKX6l1Eq/43l5hDVxWTAXk31ja3k+z+ZY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=u16gBWssceWp1pZoEzsr2VAt8LlB6WKPEzcsCxfqNMA22jp4UYuDOwdmE4lDRwI3J YkJX5q5CorWKR0QBLmdvSlc9Tnb1sVFHYc/RaOIDabn+kYr2H4dRxy15iJhjjwPY1+ 9tg4b/Q8/rcnTAI6aV52vWernTiarCalzcdsKWbRDC6xf0Pfxcwu65Jn0/tjZvVJTU /L2I5StgosR+jakn9tbHYgHdj6AQB/kDNYbE/tYiACoFj/6jbmoYJvCA1k379+m1NN Jo4jVyBoOhwrYJFczNtZlB0d19NPVci5h7I1ep2BDh5X658N7ZT9kYLaAwEcENBNc+ EA8e2MNk4c9kw== Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2022 18:15:15 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Jaewon Kim Cc: "vbabka@suse.cz" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , YongTaek Lee , "jaewon31.kim@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] memblock: introduce memsize showing reserved memory Message-ID: References: <20220324070158.22969-1-jaewon31.kim@samsung.com> <20220325083846epcms1p372559472ceb511cc45d39c110563063a@epcms1p3> <20220327135347epcms1p13faf0f2b7d98d3b59b25e903678d9c48@epcms1p1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220327135347epcms1p13faf0f2b7d98d3b59b25e903678d9c48@epcms1p1> X-Rspamd-Server: rspam09 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: 8hzrx5qkjo149hjrjrsq75maijtaqqqw Authentication-Results: imf08.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=u16gBWss; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=kernel.org; spf=pass (imf08.hostedemail.com: domain of rppt@kernel.org designates 145.40.68.75 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rppt@kernel.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 595B2160013 X-HE-Tag: 1648394126-937636 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 10:53:47PM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote: > > > >--------- Original Message --------- > >Sender : Mike Rapoport > >Date : 2022-03-27 16:40 (GMT+9) > >Title : Re: [PATCH 0/8] memblock: introduce memsize showing reserved memory > > > > > >I'm still not following. The reserved region sizes are available in the > >existing memblock debugfs. > >Why the names are important? What is the value of having names for *some* > >of the reserved regions? > > Hi > > There are many memory regions in memblock debugfs memory/reserved, and some might > be splited or merged with other region. Among regions in debugfs, we can't find > the one we defined in device tree. Especially it is difficult to find the region we > described size only without start address. > > On mobile environment, memory is used by not only CPU but also GPU, Camera, Secure > world, Audio, ETC. To support them, there are many reserved regions described in > device tree. So the name is quite important to recognize a region. And with thename > we can compare reserved memory map with other map. You still didn't describe your use case. What is the problem your patches are trying to solve? Why is it important to know what is the use of particular reserved region? You propose complex mechanism that seems to fit very particular scenario and sprinkle some calls to this mechanism at random places because you need to "compare reserved memory map with other map". Does not sound convincing to me, sorry. > Thank you > Jaewon Kim -- Sincerely yours, Mike.