> On Jul 22, 2019, at 11:50 AM, Bharath Vedartham wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In all likelihood, these questions are no-ops, and the optimizer may even
>> make my questions completely moot, but I thought I might as well ask anyway.
>>
> That sounds reasonable. I am not really sure as to how much of
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 09:20:38PM -0600, William Kucharski wrote:
> I suspect I'm being massively pedantic here, but the comments for
> atomic_pte_lookup() note:
>
> * Only supports Intel large pages (2MB only) on x86_64.
> *ZZZ - hugepage support is incomplete
>
> That makes me wonder ho
I suspect I'm being massively pedantic here, but the comments for
atomic_pte_lookup() note:
* Only supports Intel large pages (2MB only) on x86_64.
* ZZZ - hugepage support is incomplete
That makes me wonder how many systems using this hardware are actually
configured with CONFIG_HUGETLB
On 7/21/19 8:58 AM, Bharath Vedartham wrote:
> is_vm_hugetlb_page has checks for whether CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE is defined
> or not. If CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE is not defined is_vm_hugetlb_page will
> always return false. There is no need to have an uneccessary
> CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE check in the code.
>
is_vm_hugetlb_page has checks for whether CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE is defined
or not. If CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE is not defined is_vm_hugetlb_page will
always return false. There is no need to have an uneccessary
CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE check in the code.
Cc: Ira Weiny
Cc: John Hubbard
Cc: Jérôme Glisse
Cc:
5 matches
Mail list logo
