From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from digeo-nav01.digeo.com (digeo-nav01.digeo.com [192.168.1.233]) by packet.digeo.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA12483 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:00:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:00:15 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: hugepage patches Message-Id: <20030207140015.0fe40a34.akpm@digeo.com> In-Reply-To: <6315617889C99D4BA7C14687DEC8DB4E023D2E6C@fmsmsx402.fm.intel.com> References: <6315617889C99D4BA7C14687DEC8DB4E023D2E6C@fmsmsx402.fm.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Seth, Rohit" Cc: davem@redhat.com, davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com, anton@samba.org, wli@holomorphy.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: "Seth, Rohit" wrote: > > Andrew, > > New allocation of hugepages is an atomic operation. Partial allocations > of hugepages is not a possibility. Yes it is? If you ask hugetlb_prefault() to fault in four pages, and there are only two pages available then it will instantiate just the two pages. And updating i_size at the place where we add the page to pagecache makes some sense.. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/