[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+rmdQ7wd3wgvxEt@monkey>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 17:40:05 -0800
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: check for hugetlb shared PMD in
/proc/PID/smaps
On 02/13/23 19:01, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 03-02-23 12:16:04, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> [...]
> > Unless someone thinks we should move forward, I will not push the code
> > for this approach now. It will also be interesting to see if this is
> > impacted at all by the outcome of discussions to perhaps redesign
> > mapcount.
>
> Yes, I do agree. We might want to extend page_mapcount documentation a
> bit though. The comment is explicit about the order-0 pages but a note
> about hugetlb and pmd sharing wouldn't hurt. WDYT?
Looks like that comment about 'Mapcount of 0-order page' has been removed in
the latest version of page_mapcount(). It would not surprise me if the calls
to page_mapcount after which we check for shared PMDs will soon be replaced
with calls to folio_mapcount().
Perhaps Matthew has an opinion as to where map counts for hugetlb shared
PMDs might be mentioned.
--
Mike Kravetz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists