From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753473AbXCXHLj (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Mar 2007 03:11:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753474AbXCXHLj (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Mar 2007 03:11:39 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:5386 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753473AbXCXHLi (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Mar 2007 03:11:38 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=vJtMYCuTjwyWki5bfrM5FXZbgN1s3njNDeEbbR1KoeA+mwsBOPUJrSSTN8VgUGhCf IFCLxGkDfNT2WSUiNgv4g== Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:11:32 -0700 From: "Ken Chen" To: "Andrew Morton" Subject: Re: [patch] rfc: introduce /dev/hugetlb Cc: "Nish Aravamudan" , "Adam Litke" , "Arjan van de Ven" , "William Lee Irwin III" , "Christoph Hellwig" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070323221225.bdadae16.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070323205810.3860886d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <29495f1d0703232232o3e436c62lddccc82c4dd17b51@mail.gmail.com> <20070323221225.bdadae16.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/23/07, Andrew Morton wrote: > a) Ken observes that obtaining private hugetlb memory via hugetlbfs > involves "fuss". > > b) the libhugetlbfs maintainers then go off and implement a no-fuss way of > doing this. Hmm, what started this thread was libhugetlbfs maintainer complained how "fuss" it was to create private hugetlb mapping and suggested an even bigger kernel change with pagetable_operations API. The new API was designed with an end goal of introduce /dev/hugetlb (as one of the feature, they might be thinking more). What motivated me here is to point out that we can achieve the same goal of having a /dev/hugetlb with existing hugetlbfs infrastructure and the implementation is relatively straightforward. What it also buys us is a bit more flexibility to the end user who wants to use the interface directly.