Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:24:35 +0100 | From | "Jan Beulich" <> | Subject | num_physpages vs. totalram_pages |
| |
Rusty,
in a mail from beginning of last year you indicated that the confusion between these two variables should be cleaned up. Since I wasn't able to spot any follow-up regarding this matter, I'm wondering what the plan here is. I'm asking because we have got customers reporting inconsistencies mainly caused by the use of num_physpages where totalram_pages would really be more appropriate (other than in your mail, where you mainly point at the networking code, this is with the determination of the number of files the system will use without admin involvement), due to large sparse areas in the physical address map.
Unfortunately, the meaning of num_physpages seems to also vary between architectures (some treat it as being the same as totalram_pages) as well as subsystems (memory hotplug increments/decrements num_physpages along with totalram_pages).
Thanks, Jan
| |