[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110224141335.978066c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:13:35 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Petr Holasek <pholasek@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hugetlbfs: correct handling of negative input to
/proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:10:34 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 21:17:04 +0100
> Petr Holasek <pholasek@...hat.com> 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
>
> Is this true? afacit the kernel will allocate as many pages as it can
> and will then set /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages to reflect the result.
> That's not random.
>
Assuming the above to be correct, I altered the changelog thusly:
: When the user inserts a negative value into /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages it
: will cause the kernel to allocate as many hugepages as possible and to
: then update /proc/meminfo to reflect this.
:
: This changes the behavior so that the negative input will result in
: nr_hugepages value being unchanged.
and given that, I don't really see why we should change the existing behaviour.
--
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