[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEemH2f67p=wqGrwYnoVCP1fR82xxwJv1xfbMmFrvNaP7LZJog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 17:44:22 +0800
From: Li Wang <liwang@...hat.com>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] selftests/mm/charge_reserved_hugetlb: fix
hugetlbfs mount size for large hugepages
David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) <david@...nel.org> wrote:
> On 12/21/25 09:58, Li Wang wrote:
> > charge_reserved_hugetlb.sh mounts a hugetlbfs instance at /mnt/huge with
> > a fixed size of 256M. On systems with large base hugepages (e.g. 512MB),
> > this is smaller than a single hugepage, so the hugetlbfs mount ends up
> > with effectively zero capacity (often visible as size=0 in mount output).
> >
> > As a result, write_to_hugetlbfs fails with ENOMEM and the test can hang
> > waiting for progress.
>
> I'm curious, what's the history of using "256MB" in the first place (or
> specifying any size?).
Seems the script initializes it with "256MB" from:
commit 29750f71a9b4cfae57cdddfbd8ca287eddca5503
Author: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Date: Wed Apr 1 21:11:38 2020 -0700
hugetlb_cgroup: add hugetlb_cgroup reservation tests
--
Regards,
Li Wang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists