From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 08:04:39 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch 13/18] hugetlb: support boot allocate different sizes Message-ID: <20080523060438.GC4520@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080423015302.745723000@nick.local0.net> <20080423015431.027712000@nick.local0.net> <20080425184041.GH9680@us.ibm.com> <20080523053641.GM13071@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080523053641.GM13071@wotan.suse.de> 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, May 23, 2008 at 07:36:41AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:40:41AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > > So, you made max_huge_pages an array of the same size as the hstates > > array, right? > > > > So why can't we directly use h->max_huge_pagees everywhere, and *only* > > touch max_huge_pages in the sysctl path. > > It's just to bring up the max_huge_pages array initially for the > sysctl read path. I guess the array could be built every time the > sysctl handler runs as another option... that might hide away a > bit of the ugliness into the sysctl code I suppose. I'll see how > it looks. Hmm, I think we could get into problems with the issue of kernel parameter passing vs hstate setup, so things might get a bit fragile. I think it is robust at this point in time to retain the max_huge_pages array if the hugetlb vs arch hstate registration setup gets revamped, it might be something to look at, but I prefer to keep it rather than tinker at this point. -- 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