On 4/23/26 16:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 04:13:50PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: >> But really, that hugetlb code is rather messy. I'd vote for leaving hugetlb >> alone on a v1, and focusing on non-hugetlb first. > > I just dislike it when things are non orthogonal. > People are used to: hugetlb = same perf as THP but more predictable at the > cost > of being harder to use and using more resources. > Here, suddenly, we have an optimization but only for THP.
Note that we also didn't care about user_alloc_needs_zeroing() with hugetlb so far. It's not that it cannot be done with hugetlb, it's just a question about how it can be done more cleanly; and that requires more work to clean the hugetlb part up. Best done separately. -- Cheers, David
