Re: Doc tweak for huge_pages?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:54:26PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Thomas Munro
>> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > I don't know enough about this to make such a strong recommendation
>> > myself, which is why I was only trying to report that bad performance
>> > had been observed on some version, not that you shouldn't do it. Any
>> > other views on this stronger statement?
>>
>> Now that the Windows huge pages patch has landed, here is a rebase. I
>> took your alternative and tweaked it a tiny bit more. Thoughts?
>
> + <para>
> + Note that, besides explicitly requesting huge pages via
> + <varname>huge_pages</varname>,
> => I would just say:
> "Note that, besides huge pages requested explicitly, ..."

+1

> + In Linux this automatic use is
> => ON Linux comma?

+1

> + called "transparent huge pages" and is not enabled by default in
> + popular distributions as of the time of writing, but since transparent
>
> => really ? I don't know if I've ever seen it not enabled. In any case,
> that's a strong statement to make (to be disabled in ALL popular distributions).

Argh.

> https://blog.nelhage.com/post/transparent-hugepages/
> => It is enabled (”enabled=always”) by default in most Linux distributions.

Sorry, right, that was 100% wrong. It would probably be correct to
remove the "not", but let's just remove that bit. New version
attached.

Thanks.

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com