[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <06423461-c543-56fe-cc63-cabda6871104@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 11:17:52 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.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 12.01.23 22:33, Peter Xu wrote:
> 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)?
The THP-way of doing things is refcounting on the head page. All folios
use a single refcount on the head.
There has to be a pretty good reason to do it differently.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists