[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402201516140.30647@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:17:55 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
cc: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, davidlohr@...com,
isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, yinghai@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] hugetlb: add hugepages_node= command-line option
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > I'm not sure it's interesting to talk about since this patchset is
> > unnecessary if you can do it at runtime, but since "hugepagesz=" and
> > "hugepages=" have existed for many kernel releases, we must maintain
> > backwards compatibility. Thus, it seems, the easiest addition would have
> > been "hugepagesnode=" which I've mentioned several times, there's no
> > reason to implement yet another command line option purely as a shorthand
> > which hugepage_node=1:2:1G is and in a very cryptic way.
>
> There is one point from Davidlohr Bueso in favour of the proposed
> command line interface. Did you consider that aspect?
>
I did before he posted it, in
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=139267940609315. I don't think "large
machines" open up the use case for 4 1GB hugepages on node 0, 12 2MB
hugepages on node 0, 6 1GB hugepages on node 1, 24 2MB hugepages on node
1, 2 1GB hugepages on node 2, 100 2MB hugepages on node 3, etc.
--
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