[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240708143526.GE14004@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:35:26 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/45] hugetlb pagewalk unification
On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 10:30:14AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> Hey, David,
>
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 12:44:38PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > There are roughly two categories of page table walkers we have:
> >
> > 1) We actually only want to walk present folios (to be precise, page
> > ranges of folios). We should look into moving away from the walk the
> > page walker API where possible, and have something better that
> > directly gives us the folio (page ranges). Any PTE batching would be
> > done internally.
This seems like a good direction for some users as well to me.
If we can reduce the number of places touching the pud/pmd/pte APIs
that is a nice abstraction to reach toward.
It naturally would remove hugepte users too.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists