On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:06:25AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 28-03-17 10:54:08, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:55:13AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > Do we have any consensus here? Keeping SHM_HUGE_* is currently > > > winning 2-1. If there are in fact users out there computing the > > > value manually, then I am ok with keeping it and properly exporting > > > it. Michal? > > > > Well, let's see what it looks like to do that. I went down the rabbit > > hole trying to understand why some of the SHM_ flags had the same value > > as each other until I realised some of them were internal flags, some > > were flags to shmat() and others were flags to shmget(). Hopefully I > > disambiguated them nicely in this patch. I also added 8MB and 16GB sizes. > > Any more architectures with a pet favourite huge/giant page size we > > should add convenience defines for? > > Do we actually have any users? Yes this feature is widely used. -Andi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
