On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 10:49:06PM -0400, Gregory Price wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 05:47:48PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 12:36:59PM -0400, Gregory Price wrote: > > > > > > This feels like a very odd pattern: > > > > > > 1) ask for __GFP_ZERO > > > 2) Have to check whether it was actually zeroed > > > > > > Seems like the zeroing piece should just be sunk in if you're going to > > > ask for __GFP_ZERO anyway. And in that case, maybe just `bool zero` as > > > an argument, rather than GFP (to avoid future overloading of flags). > > > > > > ~Gregory > > > > Heh. The reason is that it either allocates from buddy - using gfp flags > > or from the pool, in which case it zeroes. > > > > We could even avoid the bool - just test __GFP_ZERO inside > > alloc_hugetlb_folio. Would that be better? > > > > Hard to know until we see the full shape of things, but it seems > reasonable if we can eliminate one or both new arguments that this would > be a good thing and the logic should just be sunk into hugetlb. > > ~Gregory
BTW it does mean we need to use vmf->real_address there as user_addr as opposed to vmf->address which is HP aligned. I guess I'll switch everyone to use real_address then, for consistency. -- MST
