Re: [PATCH] Use MAP_HUGETLB where supported (v3)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use MAP_HUGETLB where supported (v3)
Date: 2013-11-21 21:24:56
Message-ID: CA+TgmobvG7D0aetpo56aSUV00FF0aTWUAXh7j5tS9BJ=YHF+yA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
>> At 2013-11-15 15:17:32 +0200, hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com wrote:
>
>> > But I'm not wedded to the idea if someone objects; a log message might
>> > also be reasonable: "LOG: huge TLB pages are not supported on this
>> > platform, but huge_tlb_pages was 'on'"
>>
>> Put that way, I have to wonder if the right thing to do is just to have
>> a "try_huge_pages=on|off" setting, and log a warning if the attempt did
>> not succeed. It would be easier to document, and I don't think there's
>> much point in making it an error if the allocation fails.
>
> What about
> huge_tlb_pages={off,try}
>
> Or maybe
> huge_tlb_pages={off,try,require}

I'd spell "require" as "on", or at least accept that as a synonym.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-11-21 21:35:44 Re: COMMENT ON CONSTRAINT <name> ON DOMAIN <domain>?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-11-21 21:15:38 Re: Data corruption issues using streaming replication on 9.0.14/9.2.5/9.3.1