[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod7xTfg5aeQC7-EaOZJ47Twb8CkoS6u4C=8+y+AX-NREVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:24:36 -0800
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: split thp synchronously on MADV_DONTNEED
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:20 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 23.11.21 18:17, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 8:57 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
> > [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> I do wonder which these locking contexts are exactly, and if we could
> >>>> also do the same thing on ordinary munmap -- because I assume it can be
> >>>> similarly problematic for some applications.
> >>>
> >>> This is a good question regarding munmap. One main difference is
> >>> munmap takes mmap_lock in write mode and usually performance critical
> >>> applications avoid such operations.
> >>
> >> Maybe we can extend it too most page zapping, if that makes things simpler.
> >>
> >
> > Do you mean doing sync THP split for most of page zapping functions
> > (but only if that makes things simpler)?
> >
>
> Yes -- if there are no downsides.
>
I will try. At the moment the assumption of "Not null zap_details
implies leave swap entries" is giving me a headache.
Thanks for the suggestions and your time.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists