[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] hugetlb: add hugepages_node= command-line option
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Luiz Capitulino wrote:

> > Again, I think this syntax is horrendous and doesn't couple well with the
> > other hugepage-related kernel command line options. We already have
> > hugepages= and hugepagesz= which you can interleave on the command line to
> > get 100 2M hugepages and 10 1GB hugepages, for example.
> >
> > This patchset is simply introducing another variable to the matter: the
> > node that the hugepages should be allocated on. So just introduce a
> > hugepagesnode= parameter to couple with the others so you can do
> >
> > hugepagesz=<size> hugepagesnode=<nid> hugepages=<#>
> That was my first try but it turned out really bad. First, for every node
> you specify you need three options.

Just like you need two options today to specify a number of hugepages of a
particular non-default size. You only need to use hugepagesz= or
hugepagenode= if you want a non-default size or a specify a particular

> So, if you want to setup memory for
> three nodes you'll need to specify nine options.

And you currently need six if you want to specify three different hugepage
sizes (?). But who really specifies three different hugepage sizes on the
command line that are needed to be reserved at boot?

If that's really the usecase, it seems like you want the old

> And it gets worse, because
> hugepagesz= and hugepages= have strict ordering (which is a mistake, IMHO) so
> you have to specify them in the right order otherwise things don't work as
> expected and you have no idea why (have been there myself).

How is that difficult? hugepages= is the "noun", hugepagesz= is the
"adjective". hugepages=100 hugepagesz=1G hugepages=4 makes perfect sense
to me, and I actually don't allocate hugepages on the command line, nor
have I looked at Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt to check if I'm
constructing it correctly. It just makes sense and once you learn it it's
just natural.

> IMO, hugepages_node=<nid>:<nr_pages>:<size>,... is good enough. It's concise,
> and don't depend on any other option to function. Also, there are lots of other
> kernel command-line options that require you to specify multiple fields, so
> it's not like hugepages_node= is totally different in that regard.

I doubt Andrew is going to want a completely different format for hugepage
allocations that want to specify a node and have to deal with people who
say hugepages_node=2:1:1G and constantly have to lookup if it's 2
hugepages on node 1 or 1 hugepage on node 2.

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-15 11:41    [W:0.104 / U:1.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site