Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: HUGETLB commit handling. | Date | Thu, 8 Apr 2004 14:58:40 -0700 | From | "Seth, Rohit" <> |
| |
Andy Whitcroft <> wrote on Thursday, April 08, 2004 9:36 AM:
> We have been looking at the HUGETLB page commit issue (offlist) and > are close a final merged patch. However, our testing seems to have > thrown up an inconsistency in interface which we are not sure whether > to fix or not. > > With normal shm segments we commit the pages we will need at shmget() > time. > The real pages being allocated on demand. With hugetlb pages we > currently do not manage commit, but allocate them on map, shmat() in > this case. When we add commit handling it would seem most > appropriate to commit the pages in shmget() as for small page > mappings. However, this might seem to change the semantics slightly, > in that if there is insufficient hugepages available then the failure > would come at shmget() and not shmat() time. > > I would contend this is the right thing to do, as it makes the > semantics of hugepages match that of the existing small pages. We > are looking for a consensus as this might be construed as a semantic > change. >
IMO, doing this accounting check at shmget time seems reasonable as it aligns the accouting semantics of normal and hugepages.
> Thoughts. > > -apw > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" > in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo > info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |