[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6af86236-6abd-4749-9e13-d8a8559f2d1a@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 19:46:01 +0100
From: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
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,
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
On 15/05/2025 19:21, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 02:09:56PM -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
>>
>> I more than dislike flags2... I hate it.
>
> Yeah, to be clear - I will NACK any series that tries to add flags2 unless
> a VERY VERY good justification is given. It's horrid. And frankly this
> feature doesn't warrant something as horrible.
>
> But making mm->flags 64-bit on 32-bit kernels (which are in effect
> deprecated in my view) would fix this.
>
Just for clarity, flags2 is just one of the ways.
I had suggested making this a 64bit feature only as well in the initial version.
And Lorenzos suggestion about making flags 64 bit on 32 bit machines is good for me
as well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists