Hi:
On 2021/2/10 2:56, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 2/8/21 7:27 PM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2021/2/9 3:52, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> On 1/23/21 1:31 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
The current implementation of hugetlb_cgroup for shared mappings could have
different behavior. Consider the following two s
On 2/8/21 7:27 PM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> On 2021/2/9 3:52, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 1/23/21 1:31 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>> The current implementation of hugetlb_cgroup for shared mappings could have
>>> different behavior. Consider the following two scenarios:
>>>
>>> 1.Assume initial css reference
On 2021/2/9 3:52, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 1/23/21 1:31 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> The current implementation of hugetlb_cgroup for shared mappings could have
>> different behavior. Consider the following two scenarios:
>>
>> 1.Assume initial css reference count of hugetlb_cgroup is 1:
>> 1.1 Call
On 1/23/21 1:31 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> The current implementation of hugetlb_cgroup for shared mappings could have
> different behavior. Consider the following two scenarios:
>
> 1.Assume initial css reference count of hugetlb_cgroup is 1:
> 1.1 Call hugetlb_reserve_pages with from = 1, to = 2.
The current implementation of hugetlb_cgroup for shared mappings could have
different behavior. Consider the following two scenarios:
1.Assume initial css reference count of hugetlb_cgroup is 1:
1.1 Call hugetlb_reserve_pages with from = 1, to = 2. So css reference
count is 2 associated with 1 f
5 matches
Mail list logo