[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <04647F77-FE93-4A8E-90C1-4245709B88A5@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 07:50:08 -0700
From: William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] mm, proc: report PR_SET_THP_DISABLE in proc
> On Nov 27, 2018, at 6:17 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> This is only about the process wide flag to disable THP. I do not see
> how this can be alighnement related. I suspect you wanted to ask in the
> smaps patch?
No, answered below.
>
>> I'm having to deal with both these issues in the text page THP
>> prototype I've been working on for some time now.
>
> Could you be more specific about the issue and how the alignment comes
> into the game? The only thing I can think of is to not report VMAs
> smaller than the THP as eligible. Is this what you are looking for?
Basically, if the faulting VA is one that cannot be mapped with a THP
due to alignment or size constraints, it may be "eligible" for THP
mapping but ultimately can't be.
I was just double checking that this was meant to be more of a check done
before code elsewhere performs additional checks and does the actual THP
mapping, not an all-encompassing go/no go check for THP mapping.
Thanks,
William Kucharski
Powered by blists - more mailing lists