From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4NKOkCR007884 for ; Fri, 23 May 2008 16:24:46 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m4NKSMsD099058 for ; Fri, 23 May 2008 14:28:22 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m4NKSA2i013233 for ; Fri, 23 May 2008 14:28:21 -0600 Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 13:27:48 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: [patch 08/18] hugetlb: multi hstate sysctls Message-ID: <20080523202748.GA23924@us.ibm.com> References: <20080423015302.745723000@nick.local0.net> <20080423015430.487393000@nick.local0.net> <20080425181430.GG9680@us.ibm.com> <20080523052546.GH13071@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080523052546.GH13071@wotan.suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin 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 23.05.2008 [07:25:46 +0200], Nick Piggin wrote: > 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. That's fair. I was more referring to the fact that the relevant information would be in /proc/meminfo. > > 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. Yeah -- will need to think of a good way for the sysfs hstate API to be told the given hstate is unchangeable. So for now, they may be writable, but without any effect. 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