RE: [PATCH] ftruncate on huge page couldn't extend hugetlb file

[Chen, Kenneth W]

David Gibson wrote on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:58 PM
> > Hmm??  I don't think you need to extend the reservation when extending
> > hugetlb file via ftruncate.  You don't have any vma that pass beyond
> > current size.  So making a reservation is a wrong thing to do here.
> 
> Fwiw, I think truncate *should* extend the reservation.  We have a
> separate thread arguing about whether we should be reserving by inode
> length, as I've implemented, or by which ranges are actually mapped
> (as apw's old path implemented).  As long as it *is* by inode length -
> so it's conceptually all about the logical file in hugetlbfs, not
> about any of its mappings - I think it makes sense for an extending
> truncate() to extend the reservation.  It's not reserving them for any
> particular mapping, it's reserving them for page cache pages.

But you already make reservation at mmap time.  If you reserve it again
when extending the file, won't you double count?

- Ken

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/