[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8B8mW2zSWDDwp7G@x1n>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 16:33:13 -0500
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@...gle.com>,
Manish Mishra <manish.mishra@...anix.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/46] hugetlb: use struct hugetlb_pte for
walk_hugetlb_range
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 04:17:52PM -0500, James Houghton wrote:
> I'll look into it, but doing it this way will use _mapcount, so we
> won't be able to use the vmemmap optimization. I think even if we do
> use Hugh's approach, refcount is still being kept on the head page, so
> there's still an overflow risk there (but maybe I am
> misunderstanding).
Could you remind me what's the issue if using refcount on the small pages
rather than the head (assuming vmemmap still can be disabled)?
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists