[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3a2a329d-2592-4e31-a763-d87dcd925966@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 18:11:55 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, riel@...riel.com,
ziy@...dia.com, laoar.shao@...il.com, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, npache@...hat.com, ryan.roberts@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] prctl: introduce PR_THP_POLICY_DEFAULT_HUGE for the
process
>>> So if you're not overriding VM_NOHUGEPAGE, the whole point of this exercise
>>> is to override global 'never'?
>>>
>>
>> Again, I am not overriding never.
>>
>> hugepage_global_always and hugepage_global_enabled will evaluate to false
>> and you will not get a hugepage.
>
> Yeah, again ack, but I kind of hate that we set VM_HUGEPAGE everywhere even
> if the policy is never.
I think it should behave just as if someone does manually an madvise().
So whatever we do here during an madvise, we should try to do the same
thing here.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists