[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: num_physpages vs. totalram_pages
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:54:35 pm Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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).

Unfortunately, I have not even thought about it between then and now. I look
forward to your proposal!


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-07 02:11    [W:0.041 / U:5.772 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site