Changes in V2:
- Removed now unnecessary check as suggested by Ken Chen
When shrinking the size of the hugetlb pool via the nr_hugepages sysctl, we
are careful to keep enough pages around to satisfy reservations. But the
calculation is flawed for the following scenario:
Action
On 10/3/07, Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not quite. Count can never go below the number of reserved pages plus
> > pages allocated to MAP_PRIVATE mappings. That number is computed by:
> > (resv + (total - free)).
>
> So, (total - free) equals the number of MAP_PRIVATE pages? Does t
On 10/3/07, Adam Litke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The key is that we don't want to shrink the pool below the number of
> pages we are committed to keeping around. Before this patch, we only
> accounted for the pages we plan to hand out (reserved huge pages) but
> not the ones we've already hande
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 13:33 -0500, Adam Litke wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 10:40 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > index 84c795e..7af3908 100644
> > > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > @@ -224,14 +224,14 @@ static void try_to_free_low(u
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 10:40 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > index 84c795e..7af3908 100644
> > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > @@ -224,14 +224,14 @@ static void try_to_free_low(unsigned long count)
> > for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; ++i) {
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 08:47 -0700, Adam Litke wrote:
> When shrinking the size of the hugetlb pool via the nr_hugepages sysctl, we
> are careful to keep enough pages around to satisfy reservations. But the
> calculation is flawed for the following scenario:
>
> Action Poo
When shrinking the size of the hugetlb pool via the nr_hugepages sysctl, we
are careful to keep enough pages around to satisfy reservations. But the
calculation is flawed for the following scenario:
Action Pool Counters (Total, Free, Resv)
==
7 matches
Mail list logo
