Re: [PATCH 0/2] hugetlb fixes

On Tue, 18 June 2013 13:27:05 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:50:55 -0400 J__rn Engel wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 June 2013 14:47:03 -0400, Joern Engel wrote: > > > > > > Test program below is failing before these two patches and passing > > > after. > > > > Actually, do we hav

Re: [PATCH 0/2] hugetlb fixes

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:50:55 -0400 J__rn Engel wrote: > On Tue, 18 June 2013 14:47:03 -0400, Joern Engel wrote: > > > > Test program below is failing before these two patches and passing > > after. > > Actually, do we have a place to stuff kernel tests? And if not, > should we have one? Yep,

Re: [PATCH 0/2] hugetlb fixes

On Tue, 18 June 2013 14:47:03 -0400, Joern Engel wrote: > > Test program below is failing before these two patches and passing > after. Actually, do we have a place to stuff kernel tests? And if not, should we have one? Jörn -- My second remark is that our intellectual powers are rather geared

[PATCH 0/2] hugetlb fixes

As everyone knows, hugetlbfs sucks. But it is also necessary for large memory machines, so we should make it suck less. Top of my list were lack of rss accounting and refusing mmap with MAP_HUGETLB when using hugetlbfs. The latter generally created a know in every brain I explained this to. Tes