Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2022 14:54:53 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, okano.naoki@jp.fujitsu.com,
	PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #17448: In Windows 10, version 1703 and later, huge_pages
 doesn't work.
Message-ID: <YkaTrRBo6bk5EZ5F@paquier.xyz>
References: <17448-0a96583a67edb1f7@postgresql.org>
 <Yj6oxYsBE5LXA8ZP@paquier.xyz>
 <20220326082408.moh55zuecxjmewnm@jrouhaud>
 <CA+hUKGLwOSf-QwVtCcKx9xvugN2BSzEBBeD5DNyTXgcSRp5sTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YkQMyhsP7xgLDDT/@paquier.xyz>
 <20220331045908.bm5edcacvymgwwv2@jrouhaud>
 <YkVbbZBiC4yxXPuc@paquier.xyz>
 <20220331080055.hjrrsrd4lxwlt7f5@jrouhaud>
 <20220331104659.ol6pqe7s3tpkymuk@jrouhaud>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EdHaYIDD2mdzFFcL"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220331104659.ol6pqe7s3tpkymuk@jrouhaud>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YkaTrRBo6bk5EZ5F%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--EdHaYIDD2mdzFFcL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 06:46:59PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> So, after more digging it turns out that the patch is supposed to work.  =
If I
> force using the PG_FILE_MAP_LARGE_PAGES, postgres starts and I do see "Lo=
cked
> WS" usage with VMMap, with a size in the order of magnitude of my
> shared_buffers.
>=20
> What is apparently not working on my VM is IsWindowsVersionOrGreater(10, =
0,
> 1703).  I added some debug around to check what GetVersionEx() [2] is say=
ing,
> and I get:
>=20
> dwMajorVersion =3D=3D 6
> dwMinorVersion =3D=3D 2
> dwBuildNumber =3D=3D 9200

Okay.  Well, I'd like to think that the patch written as-is is
correct.  Now your tests are saying the contrary, so I don't really
know what to think about it :)

>> TRUE if the specified version matches, or is greater than, the version o=
f the
>> current Windows OS; otherwise, FALSE.
>=20
> Isn't that supposed to be the opposite?

I get from the upstream docs that if the runtime version of Windows is
higher than 10.0.1703, IsWindowsVersionOrGreater() should return
true.  Perhaps the issue is in the patch and its argument values, but
it does not look straight-forward to know what those values should
be, and there are no examples in the docs to show that, either :/
--
Michael

--EdHaYIDD2mdzFFcL
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=+nPl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--EdHaYIDD2mdzFFcL--