Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Mar 2013 07:46:32 +0800 | From | Simon Jeons <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] extend hugepage migration |
| |
Hi Michal, On 03/21/2013 08:56 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 21-03-13 07:49:48, Simon Jeons wrote: > [...] >> When I hacking arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c like this, >> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c >> index ae1aa71..87f34ee 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c >> @@ -354,14 +354,13 @@ hugetlb_get_unmapped_area(struct file *file, >> unsigned long addr, >> >> #endif /*HAVE_ARCH_HUGETLB_UNMAPPED_AREA*/ >> >> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 >> static __init int setup_hugepagesz(char *opt) >> { >> unsigned long ps = memparse(opt, &opt); >> if (ps == PMD_SIZE) { >> hugetlb_add_hstate(PMD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT); >> - } else if (ps == PUD_SIZE && cpu_has_gbpages) { >> - hugetlb_add_hstate(PUD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT); >> + } else if (ps == PUD_SIZE) { >> + hugetlb_add_hstate(PMD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT+4); >> } else { >> printk(KERN_ERR "hugepagesz: Unsupported page size %lu M\n", >> ps >> 20); >> >> I set boot=hugepagesz=1G hugepages=10, then I got 10 32MB huge pages. >> What's the difference between these pages which I hacking and normal >> huge pages? > How is this related to the patch set? > Please _stop_ distracting discussion to unrelated topics! > > Nothing personal but this is just wasting our time.
Sorry kindly Michal, my bad. Btw, could you explain this question for me? very sorry waste your time.
| |