[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110222003022.GA2895@spritzera.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:30:22 +0900
From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
To: Petr Holasek <pholasek@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: correct handling of negative input to
/proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 04:47:49PM +0100, Petr Holasek wrote:
> When user insert negative value into /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages it will result
> in the setting a random number of HugePages in system (can be easily showed
> at /proc/meminfo output). This patch fixes the wrong behavior so that the
> negative input will result in nr_hugepages value unchanged.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Holasek <pholasek@...hat.com>
> ---
> mm/hugetlb.c | 3 +--
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index bb0b7c1..f99d7a8 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -1872,8 +1872,7 @@ static int hugetlb_sysctl_handler_common(bool obey_mempolicy,
> unsigned long tmp;
> int ret;
>
> - if (!write)
> - tmp = h->max_huge_pages;
> + tmp = h->max_huge_pages;
Looks reasonable.
hugetlb_overcommit_handler() has the same wrong behavior.
So how about fixing that too?
Anyway,
Reviewed-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
--
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