On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Bill Irwin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 10:07:59AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > But I do think a second reason to do this is to make hugetlbfs behave
> > like a normal fs -- that is read(), write(), etc. work on files in the
> > mountpoint. But that is simply my
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Bill Irwin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 10:07:59AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
But I do think a second reason to do this is to make hugetlbfs behave
like a normal fs -- that is read(), write(), etc. work on files in the
mountpoint. But that is simply my
On 20.07.2007 [14:47:31 +1000], Nick Piggin wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >On 19.07.2007 [09:58:50 -0700], Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >+}
> >+
> >+
On 20.07.2007 [14:47:31 +1000], Nick Piggin wrote:
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
On 19.07.2007 [09:58:50 -0700], Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+}
+
+offset += ret;
+
(sorry if this is a resend... something bad seems to have happened to me)
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This code doesn't have all the ghastly tricks which we deploy to handle
concurrent truncate.
Do I need to ? Baaahh!!
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This code doesn't have all the ghastly tricks which we deploy to handle
concurrent truncate.
Do I need to ? Baaahh!! I don't want to deal with them.
Nick, can you think of any serious
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
On 19.07.2007 [09:58:50 -0700], Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ }
+
+ offset += ret;
+ retval += ret;
+ len -= ret;
+ index
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 14:29 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> + }
> +
> + offset += ret;
> + retval += ret;
> + len -= ret;
> +
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ }
+
+ offset += ret;
+ retval += ret;
+ len -= ret;
+ index += offset >> HPAGE_SHIFT;
+ offset &=
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ }
+
+ offset += ret;
+ retval += ret;
+ len -= ret;
+ index += offset HPAGE_SHIFT;
+ offset = ~HPAGE_MASK;
+
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 14:29 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+ }
+
+ offset += ret;
+ retval += ret;
+ len -= ret;
+ index += offset HPAGE_SHIFT;
+
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
On 19.07.2007 [09:58:50 -0700], Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ }
+
+ offset += ret;
+ retval += ret;
+ len -= ret;
+ index +=
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This code doesn't have all the ghastly tricks which we deploy to handle
concurrent truncate.
Do I need to ? Baaahh!! I don't want to deal with them.
Nick, can you think of any serious
(sorry if this is a resend... something bad seems to have happened to me)
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This code doesn't have all the ghastly tricks which we deploy to handle
concurrent truncate.
Do I need to ? Baaahh!!
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 10:07:59AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> But I do think a second reason to do this is to make hugetlbfs behave
> like a normal fs -- that is read(), write(), etc. work on files in the
> mountpoint. But that is simply my opinion.
Mine as well.
-- wli
-
To
On 19.07.2007 [09:58:50 -0700], Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + offset += ret;
> > > > + retval += ret;
> > > > + len -= ret;
> > > > +
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + offset += ret;
> > > + retval += ret;
> > > + len -= ret;
> > > + index += offset >> HPAGE_SHIFT;
> > > + offset &= ~HPAGE_MASK;
> > > +
> > > +
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 22:19 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:23:33 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Here is the patch to support read() for hugetlbfs, needed to get
> > oprofile working on executables backed by largepages.
> >
> >
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 22:19 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:23:33 -0700 Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Here is the patch to support read() for hugetlbfs, needed to get
oprofile working on executables backed by largepages.
If you plan to
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ }
+
+ offset += ret;
+ retval += ret;
+ len -= ret;
+ index += offset HPAGE_SHIFT;
+ offset = ~HPAGE_MASK;
+
+
On 19.07.2007 [09:58:50 -0700], Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:51:49 -0700 Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ }
+
+ offset += ret;
+ retval += ret;
+ len -= ret;
+ index += offset
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 10:07:59AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
But I do think a second reason to do this is to make hugetlbfs behave
like a normal fs -- that is read(), write(), etc. work on files in the
mountpoint. But that is simply my opinion.
Mine as well.
-- wli
-
To unsubscribe
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:23:33 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Here is the patch to support read() for hugetlbfs, needed to get
> oprofile working on executables backed by largepages.
>
> If you plan to consider Christoph Lameter's pagecache cleanup patches,
>
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:23:33 -0700 Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Here is the patch to support read() for hugetlbfs, needed to get
oprofile working on executables backed by largepages.
If you plan to consider Christoph Lameter's pagecache cleanup patches,
I will
Hi Andrew,
Here is the patch to support read() for hugetlbfs, needed to get
oprofile working on executables backed by largepages.
If you plan to consider Christoph Lameter's pagecache cleanup patches,
I will re-write this. Otherwise, please consider this for -mm.
Thanks,
Badari
Support for
Hi Andrew,
Here is the patch to support read() for hugetlbfs, needed to get
oprofile working on executables backed by largepages.
If you plan to consider Christoph Lameter's pagecache cleanup patches,
I will re-write this. Otherwise, please consider this for -mm.
Thanks,
Badari
Support for
26 matches
Mail list logo
