[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170329174514.GB4543@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:45:14 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mtk.manpages@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,hugetlb: compute page_size_log properly
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:06:25AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 28-03-17 10:54:08, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:55:13AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > Do we have any consensus here? Keeping SHM_HUGE_* is currently
> > > winning 2-1. If there are in fact users out there computing the
> > > value manually, then I am ok with keeping it and properly exporting
> > > it. Michal?
> >
> > Well, let's see what it looks like to do that. I went down the rabbit
> > hole trying to understand why some of the SHM_ flags had the same value
> > as each other until I realised some of them were internal flags, some
> > were flags to shmat() and others were flags to shmget(). Hopefully I
> > disambiguated them nicely in this patch. I also added 8MB and 16GB sizes.
> > Any more architectures with a pet favourite huge/giant page size we
> > should add convenience defines for?
>
> Do we actually have any users?
Yes this feature is widely used.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists