On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 2:06 AM Bodeddula, Balasubramaniam <boded...@amazon.com> wrote: > > Tested-by: boded...@amazon.com
Very thanks for your test. > > > > We are interested in this patch and have tested an earlier version of this > patch on 5.11-rc4 kernel version. I did a functional validation of the > changes and saw that the total memory listed by free command increasing and > more memory was made available when memory was allocated in hugepages. 1G > hugepages gave higher improvements compared to 2M, as expected. Is there a > formal way to publish the results? I can do the same as required (I am new to > Linux Kernel patching process). I don’t know if there is a formal way. But maybe you can share the test result directly through this thread. If someone knows this, please let me know. Thanks. > > > > I have a few follow-up questions on this patch: > > 1. What is the overall status of this patch? What is the ballpark timeline we > are looking for this patch to be accepted. There is only one patch of this patchset that has no reviewed-by tag. I think it might be 5.13 in the best case But I don't have the right to decide. > > 2. Why is this patch not working when memory is allocated as hugepages by THP > (transparent hugepages). THP uses AnonHugePages, doesn’t this patch > generalize for all ‘type’ of hugepages? Now it only supports HugeTLB pages. THP is a little different and complex compared to HugeTLB. I need to investigate THP in depth to determine the possible problems. > > > > Please let me know if there are any additional tasks that I can help. Happy > to help. > > > > Thanks.
