Re: [PATCH] [0/6] HUGETLB memory commitment
From: Andy Whitcroft
Date: Thu Mar 25 2004 - 18:26:40 EST
--On 25 March 2004 13:04 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sorry, but I just don't see why we need all this complexity and generality.
> If there was any likelihood that there would be additional memory domains
> in the 2.6 future then OK. But I don't think there will be. We simply
> need some little old patch which fixes this bug.
> Such as adding a `vma' arg to vm_enough_memory() and vm_unacct_memory() and
> if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma))
> - allowed = totalram_pages * sysctl_overcommit_ratio / 100;
> + allowed = (totalram_pages - htlbpagemem << HPAGE_SHIFT) *
> + sysctl_overcommit_ratio / 100;
> in cap_vm_enough_memory().
That's pretty much what you get if you only apply the first two patches. Sadly, you can't just pass a vma as you don't always have one when you are making the decision. For example when a shm segment is being created you need to commit the memory at that point, but its not been attached at all so there is no vma to check. That's why I went with an abstract domain. These patches have been tested in isolation and do seem to work.
The other patches started out wanting to solve a second issue, the generality seemed to come out naturally. I am not sure how important it is, but when we create a normal shm domain we commit the memory then. For an hugetlb one we only commit the memory when the region is attached the first time, ie when the pages are cleared and filled. Also we have no policy control over them.
In short I guess if we only are trying to fix the overcommit cross over between the normal and hugetlb, then the first two patches should be basically there.
Let me know what the decision is and I'll steer the ship in that direction.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/