From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF476B0035 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 02:07:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id gl10so7349761lab.26 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jenni2.inet.fi (mta-out1.inet.fi. [62.71.2.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id g4si17052560lba.83.2014.08.11.23.07.46 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:07:45 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: x86: vmalloc and THP Message-ID: <20140812060745.GA7987@node.dhcp.inet.fi> References: <53E99F86.5020100@scalemp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53E99F86.5020100@scalemp.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Oren Twaig Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-mm@kvack.org, "Shai Fultheim (Shai@ScaleMP.com)" On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 08:00:54AM +0300, Oren Twaig wrote: > plain/text, please. >Hello, > >Does memory allocated using vmalloc() will be mapped using huge >pages either directly or later by THP ? No. It's neither aligned properly, nor physically contiguous. >If not, is there any fast way to change this behavior ? Maybe by >changing the granularity/alignment of such allocations to allow such >mapping ? What's the point to use vmalloc() in this case? -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org