From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com (mail-pa0-f49.google.com [209.85.220.49]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ADAB6B00A5 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:17:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id hz1so2571796pad.36 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:17:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com [2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id yf8si5179470pab.265.2014.02.20.15.17.57 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:17:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id fa1so2614054pad.28 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:17:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:17:55 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] hugetlb: add hugepages_node= command-line option In-Reply-To: <20140220213854.GB11486@amt.cnet> Message-ID: References: <1392339728-13487-5-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <20140214225810.57e854cb@redhat.com> <20140217085622.39b39cac@redhat.com> <20140218123013.GA20609@amt.cnet> <20140220022254.GA25898@amt.cnet> <20140220213854.GB11486@amt.cnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Luiz Capitulino , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Andrea Arcangeli , Andi Kleen , Rik van Riel , davidlohr@hp.com, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, yinghai@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > I'm not sure it's interesting to talk about since this patchset is > > unnecessary if you can do it at runtime, but since "hugepagesz=" and > > "hugepages=" have existed for many kernel releases, we must maintain > > backwards compatibility. Thus, it seems, the easiest addition would have > > been "hugepagesnode=" which I've mentioned several times, there's no > > reason to implement yet another command line option purely as a shorthand > > which hugepage_node=1:2:1G is and in a very cryptic way. > > There is one point from Davidlohr Bueso in favour of the proposed > command line interface. Did you consider that aspect? > I did before he posted it, in http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=139267940609315. I don't think "large machines" open up the use case for 4 1GB hugepages on node 0, 12 2MB hugepages on node 0, 6 1GB hugepages on node 1, 24 2MB hugepages on node 1, 2 1GB hugepages on node 2, 100 2MB hugepages on node 3, etc. -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org