[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810031547150.202532@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 15:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, proc: report PR_SET_THP_DISABLE in proc
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > So how about this? (not tested yet but it should be pretty
> > > straightforward)
> >
> > Umm, prctl(PR_GET_THP_DISABLE)?
>
> /me confused. I thought you want to query for the flag on a
> _different_ process.
Why would we want to check three locations (system wide setting, prctl
setting, madvise setting) to determine if a heap can be backed by thp?
If the nh flag being exported to VmFlag is to be extended beyond what my
patch did, I suggest (1) it does it for the system wide setting as well
and/or (2) calling a helper function to determine if the vma could be
backed by thp in the first place regardless of any setting to determine if
nh/hg is important.
The last thing I suggest is done is adding a third place to check.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists