[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <D78P942WWF1O.IKY64R8JAIJG@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:16:20 -0500
From: "Zi Yan" <ziy@...dia.com>
To: "David Hildenbrand" <david@...hat.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "Andrew
Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Baolin Wang"
<baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, "Matthew Wilcox
(Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>, "Ryan Roberts" <ryan.roberts@....com>,
"Hugh Dickins" <hughd@...gle.com>, "Yang Shi"
<yang@...amperecomputing.com>, "Miaohe Lin" <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, "Kefeng
Wang" <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, "Yu Zhao" <yuzhao@...gle.com>, "John
Hubbard" <jhubbard@...dia.com>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] selftests/mm: make file-backed THP split work by
setting force option
On Wed Jan 22, 2025 at 9:26 AM EST, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.01.25 13:40, Zi Yan wrote:
>> Commit acd7ccb284b8 ("mm: shmem: add large folio support for tmpfs")
>> changes huge=always to allocate THP/mTHP based on write size and
>> split_huge_page_test does not write PMD size data, so file-back THP is not
>> created during the test.
>
> Just curious, why can't we write PMD size data instead, to avoid messing
> with the "force" option?
It also works. I used "force", because I notice that it is intended for
testing. Using it might be more future proof, in case huge=always changes
its semantics again in the future.
--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists