From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lBDJOXTk003878 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:24:33 -0500 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id lBDJONBX209548 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:24:25 -0700 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBDJON6e013878 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:24:23 -0700 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:24:21 -0800 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] hugetlb: introduce nr_overcommit_hugepages sysctl Message-ID: <20071213192421.GI17526@us.ibm.com> References: <20071213074156.GA17526@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071213074156.GA17526@us.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: agl@us.ibm.com Cc: wli@holomorphy.com, mel@csn.ul.ie, apw@shadowen.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, lee.schermerhorn@hp.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On 12.12.2007 [23:41:56 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > hugetlb: introduce nr_overcommit_hugepages sysctl > diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c > index 8ac5171..b85a128 100644 > --- a/kernel/sysctl.c > +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c > @@ -912,6 +912,14 @@ static struct ctl_table vm_table[] = { > .mode = 0644, > .proc_handler = &proc_dointvec, > }, > + { > + .ctl_name = CTL_UNNUMBERED, > + .procname = "nr_overcommit_hugepages", > + .data = &nr_overcommit_huge_pages, > + .maxlen = sizeof(nr_overcommit_huge_pages), > + .mode = 0644, > + .proc_handler = &proc_doulongvec_minmax, > + }, Dave's reply regarding the sysctl documentation, while unrelated to this hunk, did remind me of something I wanted to ask. Having looked at proc_doulongvec_minmax() a bit, it seems like I'm ok not specifying a min and max, as the code checks to see if the min and max are specified. Essentially, I want to allow any unsigned long value. Does this seem ok? (there doesn't seem to be a proc_doulongvec() like there is proc_dointvec(). Thanks, Nish -- Nishanth Aravamudan IBM Linux Technology Center -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org