From: Prakash Sangappa <email@example.com> To: Christoph Hellwig <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Dave Hansen <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlbfs 'noautofill' mount option Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 13:59:34 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170509085825.GB32555@infradead.org> On 5/9/17 1:58 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:12:42PM -0700, prakash.sangappa wrote: >> Regarding #3 as a general feature, do we want to >> consider this and the complexity associated with the >> implementation? > We have to. Given that no one has exclusive access to hugetlbfs > a mount option is fundamentally the wrong interface. A hugetlbfs filesystem may need to be mounted for exclusive use by an application. Note, recently the 'min_size' mount option was added to hugetlbfs, which would reserve minimum number of huge pages for that filesystem for use by an application. If the filesystem with min size specified, is not setup for exclusive use by an application, then the purpose of reserving huge pages is defeated. The min_size option was for use by applications like the database. Also, I am investigating enabling hugetlbfs mounts within user namespace's mount namespace. That would allow an application to mount a hugetlbfs filesystem inside a namespace exclusively for its use, running as a non root user. For this it seems like the 'min_size' should be subject to some user limits. Anyways, mounting inside user namespaces is a different discussion. So, if a filesystem has to be setup for exclusive use by an application, then different mount options can be used for that filesystem.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-09 21:02 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <email@example.com> 2017-05-01 18:00 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-05-02 10:53 ` Anshuman Khandual 2017-05-02 16:07 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-05-02 21:32 ` Dave Hansen 2017-05-02 23:34 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-05-02 23:43 ` Dave Hansen 2017-05-03 19:02 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-05-08 5:57 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-05-08 15:58 ` Dave Hansen 2017-05-08 22:12 ` prakash.sangappa 2017-05-09 8:58 ` Christoph Hellwig 2017-05-09 20:59 ` Prakash Sangappa [this message] 2017-05-16 16:51 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-06-16 13:15 ` Andrea Arcangeli 2017-06-20 23:35 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-06-27 20:57 ` Prakash Sangappa
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlbfs '\''noautofill'\'' mount option' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).