Please leave the context you're addressing. Reading this was a bit confusing and also hard to understand.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 7:26 PM Nicholas Pratte <npra...@iol.unh.edu> wrote: > > I fixed the docstring under setup_hugepages in os_session, and I also > made a quick fix to the dts.rst documentation. For the dts.rst > documentation, I think the following changes make more sense, based on > the concerns outlined: > > (here is a snip of the documentation with the change I made) > "as doing so prevents accidental/over > allocation of with hugepage sizes not recommended during runtime due to > contiguous memory space requirements." > Looks like there's a typo: allocation of with hugepage sizes > With regard to the wording used for the total number of hugepages, I > could change the wording to either "quantity" or "number;" I think > quantity makes more sense and is less ambiguous, but I'm curious what > you think. With reference to your comments about putting this in a > different patch set, I think a good argument could be made to put this > kind of a change in out currently existing patch, but I understand the > argument at both ends. Personally, I am in favor of adding this fix to > the current patch since we're renaming key/value pairs in the schema > and yaml already. > It looks like quantity is used with both countable and uncountable nouns, whereas number is only used with countable nouns, so quantity is also fine. Let's put it into this patch series. > As far as the property is concerned, when Jeremy and I discussed how > to best implement this fix, he suggested that a property might make > more sense here because of the potential changes that we might make to > the default size in the future (whether that be by OS, arch or > otherwise). Ultimately, we settled on inserting a property that > returns 2048 for now with the understanding that, in the future, > developers can add logic to the property as needed. Initially, I had > the hugepage size configured in the manner you described, so the > property implementation is not something I'm adamant on. I can make > the suggested change you gave above, or alternatively, if my provided > reasoning makes sense, I can insert a comment exclaiming the existence > of the property. The current expectation, based on the previous discussion, is we won't be needing any logic, so I'd just make it a class variable (defined in OSSession, as it's the same for all sessions). We can change it in the future if we uncover a case where we might need it.
