On 07/16/2010 02:13 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:27:02AM -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
>> This set of patches de-couples the idea that there is a single
>> directory in sysfs for each memory section.
>
> Any reason you didn't cc: the sysfs maintainer on these patches? If
> not,
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:27:02AM -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> This set of patches de-couples the idea that there is a single
> directory in sysfs for each memory section.
Any reason you didn't cc: the sysfs maintainer on these patches? If
not, I'll gladly ignore them...
(hint, scripts/get_m
Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> The file 'split' allows for splitting the
> directory in two, with each new directory covering half as many
> memory sections as the previous directory.
Just some random thoughts:
1) Why is it needed/helpful?
2) If it is needed, why not take an int to split after n entr
On 07/12/2010 02:30 PM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> Nathan Fontenot wrote:
>
>> The file 'split' allows for splitting the
>> directory in two, with each new directory covering half as many
>> memory sections as the previous directory.
>
> Just some random thoughts:
> 1) Why is it needed/helpful?
This
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 pow
