On (30/07/08 09:17), Adam Litke didst pronounce: > On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 15:44 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > On 26.07.2008 [14:30:40 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote: > > > Add control over remap via the --text, --data, --bss, and --disable > > > options. The first three request mapping of those segments, the last > > > disables all remap. Where the combinations requested cannot be exactly > > > handled then the request is "widened" to get that segment remapped, > > > for example if you request --data or --bss in isolation then both are > > > remapped and a warning emitted. > > > > What about force-remap, which just tries to map whatever segments might > > already be big enough (even partially on x86/x86_64)? > > Do we consider forced remapping a first-class feature? I was under the > impression that it is mostly useful for doing sniff testing but isn't > really recommended for production use. If this is true, then I'd say we > should leave it as an environment-only option (not in hugectl) for the > time being. >
Whether it should be in hugectl or not is beyond the scope of this patchset IMO. This patchset is about getting hugectl into a useful shape. The patchset as it stands has plenty of useful functionality with or without force-remap. So, how about we finish this first and worry about what else should be in there later? -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Libhugetlbfs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
