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@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>