On Sat, 2020-12-19 at 15:47 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 21:20 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:21 PM Ian Kent
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 16:01 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Dec
On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 7:52 AM Ian Kent wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2020-12-19 at 11:23 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 03:08:13PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > And looking further I see there's a race that kernfs can't do
> > > anything
> > > about between
On Sun, 2020-12-20 at 07:52 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-12-19 at 11:23 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 03:08:13PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > And looking further I see there's a race that kernfs can't do
> > > anything
> > > about between
On Sat, 2020-12-19 at 11:23 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 03:08:13PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > And looking further I see there's a race that kernfs can't do
> > anything
> > about between kernfs_refresh_inode() and fs/inode.c:update_times().
>
> Do kernfs files
Hello,
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 03:08:13PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> And looking further I see there's a race that kernfs can't do anything
> about between kernfs_refresh_inode() and fs/inode.c:update_times().
Do kernfs files end up calling into that path tho? Doesn't look like it to
me but if so
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Ian Kent wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 21:20 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:21 PM Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 16:01 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Ian Kent
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Thu,
On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 09:59 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 03:36:21PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > Sounds like your saying it would be ok to add a lock to the
> > attrs structure, am I correct?
>
> Yeah, adding a lock to attrs is a lot less of a problem and it looks
>
On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 21:20 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:21 PM Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 16:01 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Ian Kent
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 10:14 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> >
Hello,
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 03:36:21PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> Sounds like your saying it would be ok to add a lock to the
> attrs structure, am I correct?
Yeah, adding a lock to attrs is a lot less of a problem and it looks like
it's gonna have to be either that or hashed locks, which might
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:21 PM Ian Kent wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 16:01 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 10:14 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 07:48:49PM +0800, Ian Kent
On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 16:01 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 10:14 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 07:48:49PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > > What could be done is to make the kernfs node
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Ian Kent wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 10:14 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 07:48:49PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > What could be done is to make the kernfs node attr_mutex
> > > > a pointer and dynamically allocate it but
On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 10:14 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 07:48:49PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > What could be done is to make the kernfs node attr_mutex
> > > a pointer and dynamically allocate it but even that is too
> > > costly a size addition to the kernfs
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 07:48:49PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > What could be done is to make the kernfs node attr_mutex
> > a pointer and dynamically allocate it but even that is too
> > costly a size addition to the kernfs node structure as
> > Tejun has said.
>
> I guess the question to
On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 19:09 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 18:09 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 16:54 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 12:46 PM Ian Kent
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 20:59 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > > On Tue,
On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 18:09 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 16:54 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 12:46 PM Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 20:59 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 16:33 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec
On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 16:54 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 12:46 PM Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 20:59 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 16:33 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ian Kent
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Mon,
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 12:46 PM Ian Kent wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 20:59 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 16:33 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2020-12-14 at 14:14 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Dec
On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 20:59 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 16:33 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2020-12-14 at 14:14 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 11:46 AM Ian Kent
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Fri,
On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 16:33 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-12-14 at 14:14 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 11:46 AM Ian Kent
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2020-12-11 at 10:17 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > > On Fri,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 9:30 PM Ian Kent wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-12-14 at 14:14 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 11:46 AM Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-12-11 at 10:17 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2020-12-11 at 10:01 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > > > For the
On Mon, 2020-12-14 at 14:14 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 11:46 AM Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-12-11 at 10:17 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-12-11 at 10:01 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > > For the patches, there is a mutex_lock in kn->attr_mutex, as
> > > > >
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 11:46 AM Ian Kent wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-12-11 at 10:17 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-12-11 at 10:01 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > For the patches, there is a mutex_lock in kn->attr_mutex, as
> > > > Tejun
> > > > mentioned here
> > > >
On Fri, 2020-12-11 at 10:17 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-12-11 at 10:01 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > For the patches, there is a mutex_lock in kn->attr_mutex, as
> > > Tejun
> > > mentioned here
> > > (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/x8fe0cmu+aq1g...@mtj.duckdns.org/),
> > > maybe a global
On Fri, 2020-12-11 at 10:01 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>
> > For the patches, there is a mutex_lock in kn->attr_mutex, as Tejun
> > mentioned here
> > (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/x8fe0cmu+aq1g...@mtj.duckdns.org/),
> > maybe a global
> > rwsem for kn->iattr will be better??
>
> I wasn't sure
On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 16:44 +, Fox Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found this series of patches solves exact the problem I am trying
> to solve.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201202145837.48040-1-foxhlc...@gmail.com/
Right.
>
> The problem is reported by Brice Goglin on thread:
> Re: [PATCH
Hi,
I found this series of patches solves exact the problem I am trying to solve.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201202145837.48040-1-foxhlc...@gmail.com/
The problem is reported by Brice Goglin on thread:
Re: [PATCH 1/4] drivers core: Introduce CPU type sysfs interface
On Thu, 2020-06-25 at 11:43 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 04:15:19PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 19:13 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Hello, Rick.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 02:22:34PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> > > > > I don't know.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 04:15:19PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 19:13 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello, Rick.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 02:22:34PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> > > > I don't know. The above highlights the absurdity of the approach
> > > > itself to
> > >
On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 19:13 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Rick.
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 02:22:34PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> > > I don't know. The above highlights the absurdity of the approach
> > > itself to
> > > me. You seem to be aware of it too in writing: 250,000 "devices".
> >
Hello, Rick.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 02:04:15AM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> In contrast, the provided patch fixes the observed problem with no ripple
> effect to other subsystems or utilities.
>
> Greg had suggested
> Treat the system as a whole please, don't go for a short-term
> fix
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 02:04:15AM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> In contrast, the provided patch fixes the observed problem with no ripple
> effect to other subsystems or utilities.
Your patch, as-is, is fine, but to somehow think that this is going to
solve your real problem here is the issue we
Thanks, Tejun, appreciate the feedback.
On 6/23/20 4:13 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
The problem is fitting that into an interface which wholly doesn't fit that
particular requirement. It's not that difficult to imagine different ways to
represent however many memory slots, right?
Perhaps we have
Hello, Rick.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 02:22:34PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> > I don't know. The above highlights the absurdity of the approach itself to
> > me. You seem to be aware of it too in writing: 250,000 "devices".
>
> Just because it is absurd doesn't mean it wasn't built that way :)
On 6/23/20 4:45 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
Sure, but "help, I'm abusing your code interface, so fix your code
interface and not my caller code" really isn't the best mantra :)
Well, those are your words, not mine. What we're saying is, "we've
identified an interface that doesn't scale in
On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 02:33 -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> On 6/22/20 11:02 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > First off, this is not my platform, and not my problem, so it's
> > funny
> > you ask me :)
>
> Wlll, not your platform perhaps but MAINTAINERS does list you
> first and Tejun
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:01:52PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 08:02 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:09:08PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 20:03 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:48:45PM
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 02:33:48AM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> On 6/22/20 11:02 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > First off, this is not my platform, and not my problem, so it's funny
> > you ask me :)
>
> Wlll, not your platform perhaps but MAINTAINERS does list you
> first and Tejun
On 6/22/20 11:02 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
First off, this is not my platform, and not my problem, so it's funny
you ask me :)
Wlll, not your platform perhaps but MAINTAINERS does list you first and
Tejun second as maintainers for kernfs. So in that sense, any patches would
need to
On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 16:01 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 08:02 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:09:08PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 20:03 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:48:45PM -0400, Tejun
On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 08:02 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:09:08PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 20:03 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:48:45PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > Hello, Ian.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:09:08PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 20:03 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:48:45PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Hello, Ian.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 12:55:33PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > > > They are used
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 02:27:38PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:48:45PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > It should be obvious that representing each consecutive memory range with a
> > separate directory entry is far from an optimal way of representing
> > something
On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 20:03 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:48:45PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello, Ian.
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 12:55:33PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > > They are used for hotplugging and partitioning memory. The
> > > > > size of
> > >
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:48:45PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
It should be obvious that representing each consecutive memory range with a
separate directory entry is far from an optimal way of representing
something like this. It's outright silly.
On 6/22/20 11:03 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On 6/22/20 10:53 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
I don't know. The above highlights the absurdity of the approach itself to
me. You seem to be aware of it too in writing: 250,000 "devices".
Just because it is absurd doesn't mean it wasn't built that way :)
I agree, and I'm trying to influence the next
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:48:45PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Ian.
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 12:55:33PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > They are used for hotplugging and partitioning memory. The size of
> > > > the
> > > > segments (and thus the number of them) is dictated by the
> > > >
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 07:44:29PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> echo 0 > /sys/devices//system/memory/memory10374/online
>
> and boom - you've taken memory chunk 10374 offline.
>
> These changes are not just a whim. I used lockstat to measure contention
> during boot. The addition of 250,000
Hello, Ian.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 12:55:33PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > They are used for hotplugging and partitioning memory. The size of
> > > the
> > > segments (and thus the number of them) is dictated by the
> > > underlying
> > > hardware.
> >
> > This sounds so bad. There gotta be a
On Fri, 2020-06-19 at 18:23 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 01:41:39PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> > On 6/19/20 8:38 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > > I don't have strong objections to the series but the rationales
> > > don't seem
> > > particularly strong. It's solving a
On Fri, 2020-06-19 at 11:38 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Ian.
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 03:37:43PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > The series here tries to reduce the locking needed during path
> > walks
> > based on the assumption that there are many path walks with a
> > fairly
> > large
On 6/19/20 3:23 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Spending 5 minutes during boot creating sysfs objects doesn't seem like a
particularly good solution and I don't know whether anyone else would
experience similar issues. Again, not necessarily against improving the
scalability of kernfs code but the use
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 01:41:39PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> On 6/19/20 8:38 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > I don't have strong objections to the series but the rationales don't seem
> > particularly strong. It's solving a suspected problem but only half way. It
> > isn't clear whether this can
On 6/19/20 8:38 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
I don't have strong objections to the series but the rationales don't seem
particularly strong. It's solving a suspected problem but only half way. It
isn't clear whether this can be the long term solution for the problem
machine and whether it will benefit
Hello, Ian.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 03:37:43PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> The series here tries to reduce the locking needed during path walks
> based on the assumption that there are many path walks with a fairly
> large portion of those for non-existent paths, as described above.
>
> That was
For very large IBM Power mainframe systems with hundreds of CPUs and TBs
of RAM booting can take a very long time.
Initial reports showed that booting a configuration of several hundred
CPUs and 64TB of RAM would take more than 30 minutes and require kernel
parameters of udev.children-max=1024
56 matches
Mail list logo
