Re: [Libhugetlbfs-devel] [PATCH] hugeadm enhancements

2009-10-02 Thread Mel Gorman
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 04:04:44PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On 10/01/2009 11:14 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 10:18:50AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > ... Is it really a good idea fix shmmax as the total of maximum memory. As this is about hugepages, would a be

Re: [Libhugetlbfs-devel] [PATCH] hugeadm enhancements

2009-10-01 Thread Jarod Wilson
On 10/01/2009 11:14 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 10:18:50AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: ... >>> Is it really a good idea fix shmmax as the total of maximum >>> memory. As this is about hugepages, would a better value for shmmax >>> be the maximum number of hugepages th

Re: [Libhugetlbfs-devel] [PATCH] hugeadm enhancements

2009-10-01 Thread Jarod Wilson
On 10/01/2009 09:07 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:22:34PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: ... >> So hopefully, I've not butchered anything *too* badly... >> > > The entire diff is a bit of a mouthful so here is a patch-by-patch > commentary. It might be easier to post as a threaded

Re: [Libhugetlbfs-devel] [PATCH] hugeadm enhancements (was: [RFC] hugetlbfs setup script)

2009-10-01 Thread Mel Gorman
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:22:34PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On 09/18/2009 03:43 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 04:59:15PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > The attached python script has been used successfully on Red Hat > Enterprise Linux 5, Fedora 11 and Fedora 12, and is

Re: [Libhugetlbfs-devel] [PATCH] hugeadm enhancements

2009-10-01 Thread Mel Gorman
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 10:18:50AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On 10/01/2009 09:07 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:22:34PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > ... >>> So hopefully, I've not butchered anything *too* badly... >>> >> >> The entire diff is a bit of a mouthful so here is a