On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:46:00PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > if (!hugepages_supported()) > > > > > return; > > > > > seq_printf(m, > > > > > @@ -2987,6 +2989,11 @@ void hugetlb_report_meminfo(struct seq_file *m) > > > > > h->resv_huge_pages, > > > > > h->surplus_huge_pages, > > > > > 1UL << (huge_page_order(h) + PAGE_SHIFT - 10)); > > > > > + > > > > > + for_each_hstate(h) > > > > > + total += (PAGE_SIZE << huge_page_order(h)) * > > > > > h->nr_huge_pages; > > > > > > > > Please keep the total calculation consistent with what we have there > > > > already. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and I'm not sure if your comment eludes to this being racy, but it > > > would be better to store the default size for default_hstate during the > > > iteration to total the size for all hstates. > > > > I just meant to have the code consistent. I do not prefer one or other > > option. > > It's always nice when HugePages_Total * Hugepagesize cannot become greater > than Hugetlb. Roman, could you factor something like this into your > change accompanied with a documentation upodate as suggested by Dave?
Hi David! Working on it... I'll post an update soon. Thanks!
