[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210308184840.GC25767@linux>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 19:48:40 +0100
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] x86/vmemmap: Drop handling of 1GB vmemmap ranges
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 10:42:59AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/1/21 12:32 AM, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > We never get to allocate 1GB pages when mapping the vmemmap range.
> > Drop the dead code both for the aligned and unaligned cases and leave
> > only the direct map handling.
>
> Could you elaborate a bit on why 1GB pages are never used? It is just
> unlikely to have a 64GB contiguous area of memory that needs 1GB of
> contiguous vmemmap? Or, does the fact that sections are smaller than
> 64GB keeps this from happening?
AFAIK, the biggest we populate vmemmap pages with is 2MB, plus the fact
that as you pointed out, memory sections on x86_64 are 128M, which is
way smaller than what would require to allocate a 1GB for vmemmap pages.
Am I missing something?
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists