[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHS8izNmhxja_0+b2DudpXB+1DQfpnjUu+Qak+wnsApgYrvU=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:05:30 -0800
From: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
To: Sandipan Das <sandipan@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 7/8] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation tests
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:15 AM Sandipan Das <sandipan@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> For powerpc64, either 16MB/16GB or 2MB/1GB huge pages are supported depending
> on the MMU type (Hash or Radix). I was just running these tests on a powerpc64
> system with Hash MMU and ran into problems because the tests assume that the
> hugepage size is always 2MB. Can you determine the huge page size at runtime?
>
Absolutely. Let me try to reproduce this failure and it should be
fixed in the next patchset version.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists