On 1/31/2024 6:30 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 31.01.24 03:30, Yin Fengwei wrote:
On 1/29/24 22:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
+static inline pte_t get_and_clear_full_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm,
+ unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, unsigned int nr, int full)
+{
+ pte_t pte
gt; + if (pte_young(tmp_pte))
> + pte = pte_mkyoung(pte);
I am wondering whether it's worthy to move the pte_mkdirty() and pte_mkyoung()
out of the loop and just do it one time if needed. The worst case is that they
are called nr - 1 time. Or it's just too micro?
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
> + }
> + return pte;
> +}
e pages that all belong to the same large folio. I'm being
> very careful to not degrade order-0 performance, and it looks like I
> managed to achieve that.
One possible scenario:
If all the folio is 2M size folio, then one full batch could hold 510M memory.
Is it too much regarding one full batch before just can hold (2M - 4096 * 2)
memory?
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
e page faults on large folios. I simply made it work
>>> when adding large folio support. Now Yin Fengwei is working on
>>> making it fast.
>> OK, here's an actual implementation:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230207194937.122543-3-wi...@infrade
