On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 08:33:45PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 4/23/26 18:13, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 05:54:26PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > >> On 4/23/26 16:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> > >>> I just dislike it when things are non orthogonal. > >>> People are used to: hugetlb = same perf as THP but more predictable at > >>> the cost > >>> of being harder to use and using more resources. > >>> Here, suddenly, we have an optimization but only for THP. > >> > >> Note that we also didn't care about user_alloc_needs_zeroing() with > >> hugetlb so far. > > > > > > You mean, that it stays because of the reserved pool? > > I meant, that if we are running with init_on_free or init_on_alloc, that we > end > up double-zeroing right now upstream. So nobody cared to optimize that part > so far.
on the aliasing arches you mean? that double zeroing? > -- > Cheers, > > David
