On 4/21/26 16:15, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 12:04:49PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: >> On 4/21/26 04:38, Gregory Price wrote: >>> >>> Why does it need to propogate? >>> >>> Can we leave folio_zero_user() callers the same, but add a PG_zeroed >>> check in folio_zero_user() that skips the zeroing (but not the cache >>> flush) and clear the PG_zeroed bit? >> >> folio_zero_user() is just an abomination, really. > > We can't completely replace it with GFP_ZERO though e.g. because hugetlbfs > has its own pool and needs to zero that.
Right, hugetlb will have to keep using it for now. -- Cheers, David
