On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 2:15 AM Anshuman Khandual
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/26/2018 11:38 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:42 AM Dave Hansen wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/23/18 1:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> A new system call makes total sense to me. I have the same concern
>
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 2:15 AM Anshuman Khandual
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/26/2018 11:38 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:42 AM Dave Hansen wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/23/18 1:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> A new system call makes total sense to me. I have the same concern
>
On 11/23/2018 10:45 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:11 PM Anshuman Khandual
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/22/2018 11:38 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 3:52 AM Anshuman Khandual
>>> wrote:
On 11/19/2018 11:07 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 11/23/2018 10:45 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:11 PM Anshuman Khandual
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/22/2018 11:38 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 3:52 AM Anshuman Khandual
>>> wrote:
On 11/19/2018 11:07 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 11/26/2018 11:38 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:42 AM Dave Hansen wrote:
>>
>> On 11/23/18 1:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
A new system call makes total sense to me. I have the same concern
about the completeness of what's exposed in sysfs, I just don't see a
On 11/26/2018 11:38 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:42 AM Dave Hansen wrote:
>>
>> On 11/23/18 1:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
A new system call makes total sense to me. I have the same concern
about the completeness of what's exposed in sysfs, I just don't see a
On 11/26/2018 10:50 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/26/18 7:38 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 11/24/2018 12:51 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 11/22/18 10:42 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
Are we willing to go in the direction for inclusion of a new system
call, subset of it appears on
On 11/26/2018 10:50 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/26/18 7:38 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 11/24/2018 12:51 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 11/22/18 10:42 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
Are we willing to go in the direction for inclusion of a new system
call, subset of it appears on
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:42 AM Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 11/23/18 1:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> A new system call makes total sense to me. I have the same concern
> >> about the completeness of what's exposed in sysfs, I just don't see a
> >> _route_ to completeness with sysfs itself.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:42 AM Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 11/23/18 1:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> A new system call makes total sense to me. I have the same concern
> >> about the completeness of what's exposed in sysfs, I just don't see a
> >> _route_ to completeness with sysfs itself.
On 11/26/18 7:38 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 11/24/2018 12:51 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 11/22/18 10:42 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> Are we willing to go in the direction for inclusion of a new system
>>> call, subset of it appears on sysfs etc ? My primary concern is not
>>> how the
On 11/26/18 7:38 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 11/24/2018 12:51 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 11/22/18 10:42 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> Are we willing to go in the direction for inclusion of a new system
>>> call, subset of it appears on sysfs etc ? My primary concern is not
>>> how the
On 11/23/18 1:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> A new system call makes total sense to me. I have the same concern
>> about the completeness of what's exposed in sysfs, I just don't see a
>> _route_ to completeness with sysfs itself. Thus, the minimalist
>> approach as a first step.
> Outside of
On 11/23/18 1:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> A new system call makes total sense to me. I have the same concern
>> about the completeness of what's exposed in sysfs, I just don't see a
>> _route_ to completeness with sysfs itself. Thus, the minimalist
>> approach as a first step.
> Outside of
On 11/24/2018 02:43 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:21 AM Dave Hansen wrote:
>>
>> On 11/22/18 10:42 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> Are we willing to go in the direction for inclusion of a new system
>>> call, subset of it appears on sysfs etc ? My primary concern is not
On 11/24/2018 02:43 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:21 AM Dave Hansen wrote:
>>
>> On 11/22/18 10:42 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> Are we willing to go in the direction for inclusion of a new system
>>> call, subset of it appears on sysfs etc ? My primary concern is not
On 11/24/2018 12:51 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/22/18 10:42 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Are we willing to go in the direction for inclusion of a new system
>> call, subset of it appears on sysfs etc ? My primary concern is not
>> how the attribute information appears on the sysfs but
On 11/24/2018 12:51 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/22/18 10:42 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Are we willing to go in the direction for inclusion of a new system
>> call, subset of it appears on sysfs etc ? My primary concern is not
>> how the attribute information appears on the sysfs but
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:21 AM Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 11/22/18 10:42 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > Are we willing to go in the direction for inclusion of a new system
> > call, subset of it appears on sysfs etc ? My primary concern is not
> > how the attribute information appears on the
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:21 AM Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 11/22/18 10:42 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > Are we willing to go in the direction for inclusion of a new system
> > call, subset of it appears on sysfs etc ? My primary concern is not
> > how the attribute information appears on the
On 11/22/18 10:42 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> Are we willing to go in the direction for inclusion of a new system
> call, subset of it appears on sysfs etc ? My primary concern is not
> how the attribute information appears on the sysfs but lack of it's
> completeness.
A new system call makes
On 11/22/18 10:42 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> Are we willing to go in the direction for inclusion of a new system
> call, subset of it appears on sysfs etc ? My primary concern is not
> how the attribute information appears on the sysfs but lack of it's
> completeness.
A new system call makes
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:11 PM Anshuman Khandual
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/22/2018 11:38 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 3:52 AM Anshuman Khandual
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/19/2018 11:07 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >>> On 11/18/18 9:44 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:11 PM Anshuman Khandual
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/22/2018 11:38 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 3:52 AM Anshuman Khandual
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/19/2018 11:07 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >>> On 11/18/18 9:44 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
On 11/22/2018 11:38 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 3:52 AM Anshuman Khandual
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/19/2018 11:07 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 11/18/18 9:44 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
IIUC NUMA re-work in principle involves these functional changes
1.
On 11/22/2018 11:38 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 3:52 AM Anshuman Khandual
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/19/2018 11:07 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 11/18/18 9:44 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
IIUC NUMA re-work in principle involves these functional changes
1.
On 11/22/2018 11:31 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/22/18 3:52 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>
>>> It sounds like the subset that's being exposed is insufficient for yo
>>> We did that because we think doing anything but a subset in sysfs will
>>> just blow up sysfs: MAX_NUMNODES is as high as
On 11/22/2018 11:31 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/22/18 3:52 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>
>>> It sounds like the subset that's being exposed is insufficient for yo
>>> We did that because we think doing anything but a subset in sysfs will
>>> just blow up sysfs: MAX_NUMNODES is as high as
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 3:52 AM Anshuman Khandual
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/19/2018 11:07 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 11/18/18 9:44 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> IIUC NUMA re-work in principle involves these functional changes
> >>
> >> 1. Enumerating compute and memory nodes in heterogeneous
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 3:52 AM Anshuman Khandual
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/19/2018 11:07 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 11/18/18 9:44 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> IIUC NUMA re-work in principle involves these functional changes
> >>
> >> 1. Enumerating compute and memory nodes in heterogeneous
On 11/22/18 3:52 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>> It sounds like the subset that's being exposed is insufficient for yo
>> We did that because we think doing anything but a subset in sysfs will
>> just blow up sysfs: MAX_NUMNODES is as high as 1024, so if we have 4
>> attributes, that's at
On 11/22/18 3:52 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>> It sounds like the subset that's being exposed is insufficient for yo
>> We did that because we think doing anything but a subset in sysfs will
>> just blow up sysfs: MAX_NUMNODES is as high as 1024, so if we have 4
>> attributes, that's at
On 11/19/2018 11:07 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/18/18 9:44 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> IIUC NUMA re-work in principle involves these functional changes
>>
>> 1. Enumerating compute and memory nodes in heterogeneous environment
>> (short/medium term)
>
> This patch set _does_ that,
On 11/19/2018 11:07 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/18/18 9:44 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> IIUC NUMA re-work in principle involves these functional changes
>>
>> 1. Enumerating compute and memory nodes in heterogeneous environment
>> (short/medium term)
>
> This patch set _does_ that,
On 11/18/18 9:44 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> IIUC NUMA re-work in principle involves these functional changes
>
> 1. Enumerating compute and memory nodes in heterogeneous environment
> (short/medium term)
This patch set _does_ that, though.
> 2. Enumerating memory node attributes as seen
On 11/18/18 9:44 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> IIUC NUMA re-work in principle involves these functional changes
>
> 1. Enumerating compute and memory nodes in heterogeneous environment
> (short/medium term)
This patch set _does_ that, though.
> 2. Enumerating memory node attributes as seen
On 11/16/2018 10:25 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/15/18 10:27 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Not able to see the patches from this series either on the list or on the
>> archive (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/15/331). IIRC last time we discussed
>> about this and the concern which I raised
On 11/16/2018 10:25 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/15/18 10:27 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Not able to see the patches from this series either on the list or on the
>> archive (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/15/331). IIRC last time we discussed
>> about this and the concern which I raised
On 11/16/2018 09:21 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:57:58AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 11/15/2018 04:19 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
>>> This series provides a new sysfs representation for heterogeneous
>>> system memory.
>>>
>>> The previous series that was specific to
On 11/16/2018 09:21 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:57:58AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 11/15/2018 04:19 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
>>> This series provides a new sysfs representation for heterogeneous
>>> system memory.
>>>
>>> The previous series that was specific to
On 11/15/18 10:27 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> Not able to see the patches from this series either on the list or on the
> archive (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/15/331). IIRC last time we discussed
> about this and the concern which I raised was in absence of a broader NUMA
> rework for multi
On 11/15/18 10:27 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> Not able to see the patches from this series either on the list or on the
> archive (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/15/331). IIRC last time we discussed
> about this and the concern which I raised was in absence of a broader NUMA
> rework for multi
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:57:58AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 11/15/2018 04:19 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
> > This series provides a new sysfs representation for heterogeneous
> > system memory.
> >
> > The previous series that was specific to HMAT that this series was based
> > on was last
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:57:58AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 11/15/2018 04:19 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
> > This series provides a new sysfs representation for heterogeneous
> > system memory.
> >
> > The previous series that was specific to HMAT that this series was based
> > on was last
On 11/15/2018 04:19 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
> This series provides a new sysfs representation for heterogeneous
> system memory.
>
> The previous series that was specific to HMAT that this series was based
> on was last posted here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/13/968
>
> Platforms may provide
On 11/15/2018 04:19 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
> This series provides a new sysfs representation for heterogeneous
> system memory.
>
> The previous series that was specific to HMAT that this series was based
> on was last posted here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/13/968
>
> Platforms may provide
This series provides a new sysfs representation for heterogeneous
system memory.
The previous series that was specific to HMAT that this series was based
on was last posted here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/13/968
Platforms may provide multiple types of cpu attached system memory. The
memory
This series provides a new sysfs representation for heterogeneous
system memory.
The previous series that was specific to HMAT that this series was based
on was last posted here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/13/968
Platforms may provide multiple types of cpu attached system memory. The
memory
48 matches
Mail list logo
