Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlbfs 'noautofill' mount option | From | Prakash Sangappa <> | Date | Tue, 16 May 2017 09:51:40 -0700 |
| |
On 5/9/17 1:59 PM, Prakash Sangappa wrote: > > > 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. >
Any further comments?
Cc'ing Andrea as we had discussed this requirement for the Database.
| |