On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 05:32:16PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 4/14/26 12:22, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 11:18:02AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > >> On 4/13/26 22:35, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> So here's an only alternative I see: a page flag for when page is in > >>> buddy and a new "prezero" bool that we have to propagate everywhere > >>> else. This is a patch on top. More elegant? Please tell me if you prefer > >>> that. > >>> If yes I will squash it into the appropriate patches. > >> > >> I'd be interesting to know how this would look without the GFP flag, > >> when we don't have to leak any of this out of the buddy. > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> > >> David > > > > But the zeroing takes place outside of the buddy now, it's more > > "reporting" than "leaking". > > Exposing some buddy internals using questionable GFP flags, however you > want to call that hack ;) > > > > > You mean, moving the zeroing into buddy? > > Yes. Such that it doesn't really matter how we maintain this information > internally. A page flag is probably still nicer for that purpose.
OK, sure. Let me just finish testing, and I will post. -- MST
