From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:57:52 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [patch 14/21] x86: add hugepagesz option on 64-bit Message-ID: <20080603205752.GK20824@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20080603095956.781009952@amd.local0.net> <20080603100939.967775671@amd.local0.net> <1212515282.8505.19.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net> <20080603182413.GJ20824@one.firstfloor.org> <1212519555.8505.33.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1212519555.8505.33.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dave Hansen Cc: Andi Kleen , npiggin@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Nishanth Aravamudan , linux-mm@kvack.org, kniht@us.ibm.com, abh@cray.com, joachim.deguara@amd.com List-ID: > The downside of something like this is that you have yet another data > structure to manage. Andi, do you think something like this would be > workable? The reason I don't like your proposal is that it makes only sense with a lot of hugepage sizes being active at the same time. But the API (one mount per size) doesn't really scale to that anyways. It should support two (as on x86), three if you stretch it, but anything beyond would be difficult. If you really wanted to support a zillion sizes you would at least first need a different flexible interface that completely hides page sizes. Otherwise you would drive both sysadmins and programmers crazy and overlong command lines would be the smallest of their problems With two or even three sizes only the whole thing is not needed and my original scheme works fine IMHO. That is why I was also sceptical of the newly proposed sysfs interfaces. For two or three numbers you don't need a sysfs interface. -Andi -- 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