Ah OK, I will include the change.
Thank you,
Pasha
On 05/15/2017 07:17 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
Hello Pasha,
Thank you for looking at this patch. I am worried to make the proposed
change, because, as I understand in this case we allocate memory not for
"struct page"s but for table that hold
Hello Pasha,
> Thank you for looking at this patch. I am worried to make the proposed
> change, because, as I understand in this case we allocate memory not for
> "struct page"s but for table that hold them. So, we will change the behavior
> from the current one, where this table is allocated zero
Hi Heiko,
Thank you for looking at this patch. I am worried to make the proposed
change, because, as I understand in this case we allocate memory not for
"struct page"s but for table that hold them. So, we will change the
behavior from the current one, where this table is allocated zeroed, but
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 01:03:16PM -0400, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> If we are using deferred struct page initialization feature, most of
> "struct page"es are getting initialized after other CPUs are started, and
> hence we are benefiting from doing this job in parallel. However, we are
> still zeroi
If we are using deferred struct page initialization feature, most of
"struct page"es are getting initialized after other CPUs are started, and
hence we are benefiting from doing this job in parallel. However, we are
still zeroing all the memory that is allocated for "struct pages" using the
boot CP
