linux-kernel - Re: num_physpages vs. totalram

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:38:02 +0930
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: num_physpages vs. totalram_pages

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:54:35 pm Jan Beulich wrote:
> Rusty,
>
> in a mail from beginning of last year you indicated that the confusion
> between these two variables should be cleaned up. Since I wasn't able to
> spot any follow-up regarding this matter, I'm wondering what the plan here
> is. I'm asking because we have got customers reporting inconsistencies
> mainly caused by the use of num_physpages where totalram_pages would really
> be more appropriate (other than in your mail, where you mainly point at the
> networking code, this is with the determination of the number of files the
> system will use without admin involvement), due to large sparse areas in
> the physical address map.
>
> Unfortunately, the meaning of num_physpages seems to also vary between
> architectures (some treat it as being the same as totalram_pages) as well
> as subsystems (memory hotplug increments/decrements num_physpages along
> with totalram_pages).

Unfortunately, I have not even thought about it between then and now.  I look 
forward to your proposal!

Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/