archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Prakash Sangappa <>
To: Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc: Dave Hansen <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlbfs 'noautofill' mount option
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 13:59:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

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.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-09 21:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <>
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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlbfs '\''noautofill'\'' mount option' \

* 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).