| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200906070938.03131.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists