Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-30 Thread dean gaudet
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

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-30 Thread dean gaudet
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

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-23 Thread Nishanth Aravamudan
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: > >> > >> > >+} > >+ > >+

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-23 Thread Nishanth Aravamudan
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; +

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-20 Thread Nick Piggin
(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!!

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-20 Thread Nick Piggin
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

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-20 Thread Nick Piggin
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

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-20 Thread Badari Pulavarty
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; > +

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-20 Thread Nick Piggin
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 &=

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-20 Thread Nick Piggin
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; +

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-20 Thread Badari Pulavarty
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; +

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-20 Thread Nick Piggin
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 +=

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-20 Thread Nick Piggin
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

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-20 Thread Nick Piggin
(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!!

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-19 Thread Bill Irwin
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

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-19 Thread Nishanth Aravamudan
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; > > > > +

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-19 Thread Andrew Morton
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; > > > + > > > +

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-19 Thread Badari Pulavarty
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. > > > >

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-19 Thread Badari Pulavarty
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

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-19 Thread Andrew Morton
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; + +

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-19 Thread Nishanth Aravamudan
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

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-19 Thread Bill Irwin
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

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-18 Thread Andrew Morton
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, >

Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs read() support

2007-07-18 Thread Andrew Morton
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