Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] mm, hugetlb: add VM_NORESERVE check in vma_has_reserves()

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > If we map the region with MAP_NORESERVE and MAP_SHARED, > we can skip to check reserve counting and eventually we cannot be ensured > to allocate a huge page in fault time. > With following example code, you can easily find this situation. > >

Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] mm, hugetlb: add VM_NORESERVE check in vma_has_reserves()

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com wrote: If we map the region with MAP_NORESERVE and MAP_SHARED, we can skip to check reserve counting and eventually we cannot be ensured to allocate a huge page in fault time. With following example code, you can easily find

[PATCH v3 7/9] mm, hugetlb: add VM_NORESERVE check in vma_has_reserves()

If we map the region with MAP_NORESERVE and MAP_SHARED, we can skip to check reserve counting and eventually we cannot be ensured to allocate a huge page in fault time. With following example code, you can easily find this situation. Assume 2MB, nr_hugepages = 100 fd =

[PATCH v3 7/9] mm, hugetlb: add VM_NORESERVE check in vma_has_reserves()

If we map the region with MAP_NORESERVE and MAP_SHARED, we can skip to check reserve counting and eventually we cannot be ensured to allocate a huge page in fault time. With following example code, you can easily find this situation. Assume 2MB, nr_hugepages = 100 fd =