Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: correct handling of negative input to/proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
From: Eric B Munson
Date: Thu Feb 24 2011 - 13:22:30 EST
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 04:18:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:02:36 +0000
> > Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 04:47:49PM +0100, Petr Holasek wrote:
> > > > When user insert negative value into /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages it will result
> > > > in the setting a random number of HugePages in system (can be easily showed
> > > > at /proc/meminfo output).
> > >
> > > I bet you a shiny penny that the value of HugePages becomes the maximum
> > > number that could be allocated by the system at the time rather than a
> > > random value.
> > That seems to be the case from my reading. In which case the patch
> > removes probably-undocumented and possibly-useful existing behavior.
> It's not proof that no one does this but I'm not aware of any documentation
> related to hugetlbfs that recommends writing negative values to take advantage
> of this side-effect. It's more likely they simply wrote a very large number
> to nr_hugepages if they wanted "as many hugepages as possible" as it makes
> more intuitive sense than asking for a negative amount of pages. hugeadm at
> least is not depending on this behaviour AFAIK.
That is correct, hugeadm never writes negative values to huge page pool sizes.
Description: Digital signature