Hi Christoph, Did you have any thoughts on my follow-on question below?
Cheers, Michael On 10/14/2016 12:09 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Christoph, > > On 13 October 2016 at 20:16, Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> >>> @@ -100,7 +100,10 @@ If, however, the shared memory region was created with >>> the >>> .B SHM_HUGETLB >>> flag, >>> the huge pages will be allocated according to the policy specified >>> -only if the page allocation is caused by the process that calls >>> +only if the page allocation is caused by the thread that calls >>> +.\" >>> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "process" to "thread" in the preceding >>> line? >> >> No leave it as process. Pages get one map refcount per page table >> that references them (meaning a process). More than one map refcount means >> that multiple processes have mapped the page. >> >>> @@ -300,7 +303,10 @@ is specified in >>> .IR flags , >>> then the kernel will attempt to move all the existing pages >>> in the memory range so that they follow the policy. >>> -Pages that are shared with other processes will not be moved. >>> +Pages that are shared with other threads will not be moved. >>> +.\" >>> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "processes" to "threads" in the preceding >>> line? >>> +.\" >> >> Leave it. Same as before. >> >>> If >>> then the kernel will attempt to move all existing pages in the memory range >>> -regardless of whether other processes use the pages. >>> -The calling process must be privileged >>> +regardless of whether other threads use the pages. >>> +.\" >>> +.\" ??? Is it correct to change "processes" to "threads" in the preceding >>> line? >>> +.\" >> >> Leave as process. > > Thanks. So, are all the other cases where I changed "process" to > "thread" okay then? > > Cheers, > > Michael > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
