On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 11:31 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > We are a lot more reliable than we were although exact quantification is > difficult because it's workload dependent. For a long time, I've been able > to test bits and pieces with hugepages by allocating the pool at the time > I needed it even after days of uptime. Previously this required a reboot.
This is also a pretty big expansion of fs/hugetlb/ use outside of the filesystem itself. It is hacking the existing shared memory kernel-internal user to spit out effectively anonymous memory. Where do we draw the line where we stop using the filesystem for this? Other than the immediate code reuse, does it gain us anything? I have to think that actually refactoring the filesystem code and making it usable for really anonymous memory, then using *that* in these patches would be a lot more sane. Especially for someone that goes to look at it in a year. :) -- Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
