To: Kanoj Sarcar cc: k-suganuma@mvj.biglobe.ne.jp (Kimio Suganuma), Paul McKenney/Beaverton/IBM@IBMUS, andi@suse.de, andrea@suse.de, aono@ed2.com1.fc.nec.co.jp, beckman@turbolabs.com, bjorn_helgaas@hp.com, Hubertus Franke/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Jerry.Harrow@Compaq.com, jwright@engr.sgi.com, kanoj@engr.sgi.com, kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp, norton@mclinux.com, suganuma@hpc.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp, sunil.saxena@intel.com, tbutler@hi.com, woodman@missioncriticallinux.com, mikek@sequent.com, Kenneth Rozendal/Austin/IBM@IBMUS Date: 03/29/01 10:54 PM From: Kimio Suganuma Subject: Re: NUMA-on-Linux roadmap, version 2 > > I feel this topology descriptor might be also useful > > for other purposes. For example, for hot-plugging, > > dynamic patitioning, MCA handling and so on. > > If you can provide some logic, let us all know, it is > always helpful to know a certain feature can be used > for multiple things while arguing that it should be done. For example, CPU online/offline function posted to linux-kernel by Rusty Russel is using like /proc/sys/kernel/cpu/0, 1, 2... to control CPU status. Like this, hot plugging for CPU and memory will need /proc/*something*. Guess when each function to show or control cpu/memory has each /proc/*something*. It's ugly! I think it is good idea to gather all interfaces regarding topology into under /proc/node. Do I make sense? > > Do you think this /proc information should be generic > > or NUMA specific? > > At least for /proc/nodeinfo, and possibly even for a > tree/graph under /proc, I think it would be done even > for non-NUMA. For example, /proc/nodeinfo on regular > SMP would just list most of the information that > /proc/meminfo provides, as well as all the cpus in > the system. > > Of course, Linus (or someone else) might object to > exporting the same information multiple ways. It's all right. I just wanted to make sure your thought. Kimi -- Kimio Suganuma