Re: num_physpages vs. totalram_pages

[Rusty Russell]

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:54:35 pm Jan Beulich wrote:
> Rusty,
>
> in a mail from beginning of last year you indicated that the confusion
> between these two variables should be cleaned up. Since I wasn't able to
> spot any follow-up regarding this matter, I'm wondering what the plan here
> is. I'm asking because we have got customers reporting inconsistencies
> mainly caused by the use of num_physpages where totalram_pages would really
> be more appropriate (other than in your mail, where you mainly point at the
> networking code, this is with the determination of the number of files the
> system will use without admin involvement), due to large sparse areas in
> the physical address map.
>
> Unfortunately, the meaning of num_physpages seems to also vary between
> architectures (some treat it as being the same as totalram_pages) as well
> as subsystems (memory hotplug increments/decrements num_physpages along
> with totalram_pages).

Unfortunately, I have not even thought about it between then and now.  I look 
forward to your proposal!

Rusty.
--
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/