Hi Nick, On 4/10/08, npiggin@suse.de <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:Have you tested with the libhugetlbfs test suite? We're gearing up for libhugetlbfs 1.3, so most of the test are uptodate and expected to run cleanly, even with giant hugetlb page support (Jon has been working diligently to test with his 16G page support for power). I'm planning on pushing the last bits out today for Adam to pick up before we start stabilizing for 1.3, so I'm hoping if you grab tomorrow's development snapshot from libhugetlbfs.ozlabs.org, things should run ok. Probably only with just 1G hugepages, though, we haven't yet taught libhugetlbfs about multiple hugepage size availability at run-time, but that shouldn't be hard. I've got a few ideas here. Are we sure that /proc/sys/vm/nr_{,overcommit}_hugepages is the pool allocation interface we want going forward? I'm fairly sure we don't. I think we're best off moving to a sysfs-based allocator scheme, while keeping /proc/sys/vm/nr_{,overcommit}_hugepages around for the default hugepage size (which may be the only for many folks for now). I'm thinking something like: /sys/devices/system/[DIRNAME]/nr_hugepages -> nr_hugepages_{default_hugepagesize} /sys/devices/system/[DIRNAME]/nr_hugepages_default_hugepagesize /sys/devices/system/[DIRNAME]/nr_hugepages_other_hugepagesize1 /sys/devices/system/[DIRNAME]/nr_hugepages_other_hugepagesize2 /sys/devices/system/[DIRNAME]/nr_overcommit_hugepages -> nr_overcommit_hugepages_{default_hugepagesize} /sys/devices/system/[DIRNAME]/nr_overcommit_hugepages_default_hugepagesize /sys/devices/system/[DIRNAME]/nr_overcommit_hugepages_other_hugepagesize1 /sys/devices/system/[DIRNAME]/nr_overcommit_hugepages_other_hugepagesize2 That is, nr_hugepages in the directory (should it be called vm? memory? hugepages specifically? I'm looking for ideas!) will just be a symlink to the underlying default hugepagesize allocator. The files themselves would probably be named along the lines of: nr_hugepages_2M nr_hugepages_1G nr_hugepages_64K etc? We'd want to have a similar layout on a per-node basis, I think (see my patchsets to add a per-node interface). There are definitely going to be conflicts between my per-node stack and your set, but if you agree the interface should be cleaned up for multiple hugepage size support, then I'd like to get my sysfs bits into -mm and work on putting the global allocator into sysfs properly for you to base off. I think there's enough room for discussion that -mm may be a bit premature, but that's just my opinion. Thanks for keeping the patchset uptodate, I hope to do a more careful review next week of the individual patches. Thanks, Nish --
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 004/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingPatches |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Willy Tarreau | Re: Linux 2.6.21 |
| Jan Kundrát | kswapd high CPU usage with no swap |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once |
