[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140227164524.GB909@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:45:24 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
Cc: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, riel@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
mingo@...nel.org, mgorman@...e.de, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, aarcange@...hat.com
Subject: Re: + mm-revert-thp-make-madv_hugepage-check-for-mm-def_flags.patch
added to -mm tree
On 02/26, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:06:03 +0100
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > It would be nice to also change thp_split_mm() to not not play with
> > mm->def_flags, but I am not sure if we can do this.
>
> Hmm, I'm also wondering about this. Basically, we only need VM_NOHUGEPAGE
> in vma->vm_flags, which is done for all existing vmas in thp_split_mm().
> But if there should be new vmas created afterwards, it would still be
> necessary to also have VM_NOHUGEPAGE in mm->def_flags, because the
> vm_flags for new vmas will be set via OR of mm->def_flags, e.g. in
> do_brk() and do_mmap_pgoff().
Yes, exactly, this was my concern.
And while I know nothing about s390, it seems to me that huge pages should
be forbidden for any vma if ->has_pgste was set.
> Anyway, this would then have to be a separate patch, to keep the
> "revertability" of this hack.
Agreed. Thanks!
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists