Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:17:09 +0100 | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH v7 09/10] selftests/mm/cow: Generalize do_run_with_thp() helper | From | David Hildenbrand <> |
| |
On 27.11.23 15:11, Ryan Roberts wrote: > On 27/11/2023 13:59, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> >>>>> + pmdsize = read_pmd_pagesize(); >>>>> + if (pmdsize) >>>>> + ksft_print_msg("[INFO] detected PMD-mapped THP size: %zu KiB\n", >>>> >>>> Maybe simply: "detected PMD size". Zes, we read it via the THP interface, but >>>> that shouldn't matter much. >>> >>> Err, just want to clarify what you are suggesting. With the current patch you >>> will see something like: >> >> Not with this patch, but with the other ones, yes :) > > Yep, we are on the same page (folio)... > >> >>> >>> [INFO] detected PMD-mapped THP size: 2048 KiB >>> [INFO] detected small-sized THP size: 64 KiB >>> [INFO] detected small-sized THP size: 128 KiB >>> ... >>> [INFO] detected small-sized THP size: 1024 KiB >>> >>> >>> Are you suggesting something like this: >>> >>> [INFO] detected PMD size: 2048 KiB >>> [INFO] detected THP size: 64 KiB >>> [INFO] detected THP size: 128 KiB >>> ... >>> [INFO] detected THP size: 2048 KiB >>> >> >> Yes. If you'd detect that 2M is actually disabled, you could still log the PMD >> size only. > > Note that in the final patch, where I test the other THP sizes, I'm not > detecting which sizes the sysadmin has enabled, I'm detecting the set of sizes > that can be enabled, then explicitly enabling the size (exclusively) when I test > it. So there is no chance of reading PMD size but not having 2M THP. Minor point > though.
Ah, makes sense, I missed that and thought we'd check if that size is actually possible.
-- Cheers,
David / dhildenb
| |