On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 08:45:59PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 01:48:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:08:02 -0400 pet...@redhat.com wrote:
> >
> > > From: Peter Xu
> > >
> > > Now follow_page() is ready to handle hugetlb pages in whatever form,
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 01:48:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:08:02 -0400 pet...@redhat.com wrote:
>
> > From: Peter Xu
> >
> > Now follow_page() is ready to handle hugetlb pages in whatever form, and
> > over all architectures. Switch to the generic code path.
> >
>
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:08:02 -0400 pet...@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Peter Xu
>
> Now follow_page() is ready to handle hugetlb pages in whatever form, and
> over all architectures. Switch to the generic code path.
>
> Time to retire hugetlb_follow_page_mask(), following the previous
>
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 11:55:11AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> Jason,
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:30:12AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:08:02PM -0400, pet...@redhat.com wrote:
> >
> > > A quick performance test on an aarch64 VM on M1 chip shows 15% degrade
> > >
Jason,
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:30:12AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:08:02PM -0400, pet...@redhat.com wrote:
>
> > A quick performance test on an aarch64 VM on M1 chip shows 15% degrade over
> > a tight loop of slow gup after the path switched. That shouldn't be
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:08:02PM -0400, pet...@redhat.com wrote:
> A quick performance test on an aarch64 VM on M1 chip shows 15% degrade over
> a tight loop of slow gup after the path switched. That shouldn't be a
> problem because slow-gup should not be a hot path for GUP in general: when
>
From: Peter Xu
Now follow_page() is ready to handle hugetlb pages in whatever form, and
over all architectures. Switch to the generic code path.
Time to retire hugetlb_follow_page_mask(), following the previous
retirement of follow_hugetlb_page() in 4849807114b8.
There may be a slight
