linux-kernel - 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <4A2938B302000078000049D7@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date:	Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:24:35 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Rusty Russell" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: num_physpages vs. totalram_pages

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).

Thanks, Jan

--
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/