RE: HUGETLB commit handling.

Seth, Rohit
2004-04-08T21:58:40Z

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