[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210218172500.GA4718@ziepe.ca>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:25:00 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hugetlb: fix update_and_free_page contig page struct
assumption
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 02:45:54PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:02:52AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:49:25 -0800 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:
> > > page structs are not guaranteed to be contiguous for gigantic pages. The
> >
> > June 2014. That's a long lurk time for a bug. I wonder if some later
> > commit revealed it.
>
> I would suggest that gigantic pages have not seen much use. Certainly
> performance with Intel CPUs on benchmarks that I've been involved with
> showed lower performance with 1GB pages than with 2MB pages until quite
> recently.
I suggested in another thread that maybe it is time to consider
dropping this "feature"
If it has been slightly broken for 7 years it seems a good bet it
isn't actually being used.
The cost to fix GUP to be compatible with this will hurt normal
GUP performance - and again, that nobody has hit this bug in GUP
further suggests the feature isn't used..
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists