On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:03:36PM -0600, Adam Litke wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 17:32 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:01:09PM +0000, Adam Litke wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Adam Litke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > hugeutils.c | 12 ++++++------
> > > kernel-features.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/hugeutils.c b/hugeutils.c
> > > index 1121966..999da74 100644
> > > --- a/hugeutils.c
> > > +++ b/hugeutils.c
> > > @@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ static void probe_default_hpage_size(void)
> > > int index;
> > >
> > > if (nr_hpage_sizes == 0) {
> > > - DEBUG("No configured huge page sizes\n");
> > > + INFO("No configured huge page sizes\n");
> > > hpage_sizes_default_idx = -1;
> > > return;
> >
> > Is this sort of message not a WARNING elsewhere?
>
> It's a warning if a user tries to use huge pages but can not due to
> missing support. Here, the system is internally trying to discover the
> default huge page size. Since this happens at startup, the user might
> not have even requested any huge pages so no semantics are being altered
> and no recovery is needed.
>
hmm, this is a real fine line. The user expects particular semantics and
might not realise that hugepages are not even enabled. This is the case
in older Debian kernels for example. I guess the user will get warnings
later though.
> > > }
> > > @@ -314,12 +314,12 @@ static void probe_default_hpage_size(void)
> > > if (index >= 0)
> > > hpage_sizes_default_idx = index;
> > > else {
> > > - DEBUG("No mount point found for default huge page "
> > > + INFO("No mount point found for default huge page "
> > > "size. Using first available mount point.\n");
> >
> > Same.
>
> This is a little closer to the line. In this scenario, the system does
> not have a mount point for the page size that appears in /proc/meminfo
> but there is a size mounted that we can use. I suppose you could argue
> that if the user specified the default size (via
> HUGETLB_DEFAULT_PAGE_SIZE) and we needed to override that, that this
> message should be a warning. But if this is just the library deciding
> for itself what size to use by default, then I feel this message is more
> informative (INFO) in nature. What do you think?
>
If the user gets a WARNING at some point that the semantics they expect
are unavailable, then I'm ok with this being an INFO. What I don't want
is the library to emit no WARNING or ERROR when hugepages are not being
used as requested.
--
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
Libhugetlbfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
