From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 07:25:46 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch 08/18] hugetlb: multi hstate sysctls Message-ID: <20080523052546.GH13071@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080423015302.745723000@nick.local0.net> <20080423015430.487393000@nick.local0.net> <20080425181430.GG9680@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080425181430.GG9680@us.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, andi@firstfloor.org, kniht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, abh@cray.com, wli@holomorphy.com List-ID: On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:14:30AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > On 23.04.2008 [11:53:10 +1000], npiggin@suse.de wrote: > > Expand the hugetlbfs sysctls to handle arrays for all hstates. This > > now allows the removal of global_hstate -- everything is now hstate > > aware. > > > > - I didn't bother with hugetlb_shm_group and treat_as_movable, > > these are still single global. > > - Also improve error propagation for the sysctl handlers a bit > > So, I may be mis-remembering, but the hugepages that are gigantic, that > is > MAX_ORDER, cannot be allocated or freed at run-time? If so, why do Right. > we need to report them in the sysctl? It's a read-only value, right? I guess for reporting and compatibility. > Similarly, for the sysfs interface thereto, can I just make them > read-only? I guess it would be an arbitrary difference from the other > files, but reflects reality? For the sysfs interface, I think that would be a fine idea to make them readonly if they cannot be changed. -- 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