On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 07:41:03PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 06:01:10PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Thread a user virtual address from vma_alloc_folio() down through > > the page allocator to post_alloc_hook(). This is plumbing preparation > > for a subsequent patch that will use user_addr to call folio_zero_user() > > for cache-friendly zeroing of user pages. > > > > The user_addr is stored in struct alloc_context and flows through: > > vma_alloc_folio -> folio_alloc_mpol -> __alloc_pages_mpol -> > > __alloc_frozen_pages -> get_page_from_freelist -> prep_new_page -> > > post_alloc_hook > > I don't like this. I think we should instead lift the zeroing from > post_alloc_hook() to the callers of __alloc_frozen_pages().
can you and david agree somehow? I don't like being caught betweem maintainers like this. > I don't understand why you want to remove the double-zeroing of memory > when the user has asked for zero_on_alloc. They asked for stupid things, > let them bear the cost. it's just a side effect. I did not even test what effect it has. what I care about is the overhead with reporting.
