From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3BD53AF677; Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:31:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780929100; cv=none; b=BxcmHyWyJXWgEfX6uxB/a3PRR5UWd9wms/OrZ9jR2My6zmwJlX4F8Enj1GrN4UC3LMXyET0acbftgmCGMpHjuRBcLMDotTj/fWHHsTnzBnAZ9lKFWvDjvcTP3pjZoDWLmKxdzlxc5KVewupiuaZupUB0bfiF2tv0PppKoUZsSms= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780929100; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7eNYY+k1lyA4FvXhbOw140YsyQy5yFsos8bQSfVObMk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FzV7/d9bPAbD6t4qQQ/2jnne76y9VLKHsFrEJVlxNyh2kfAJeR3ybe3MXm0v/zJ1Nx5wNXVa0ESip99H5qJTU+hsGnMgW5KbmLYxUfbV6O/zu/3nk2sViInQdxqWQQ3n81QVs/zn2ptXHqUxLHdF7O/OjCL2rssgPI872iVV6jE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=dHnnZkFx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="dHnnZkFx" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=g2Tv9hG8BF6SBNjB6VRmLZtGoDlqqE/2YoO3HTRhEYA=; b=dHnnZkFxVDWnflPsfwmp9sQPpu zzf5qC2v2ANr29RNwOIh7FkBcRpKxS+A/ka8ZCWJfWYG/9GXigQ/ziMHHd5sO5wMdeFpujsbxngo6 gjIky9fKqU0gPZn58322i9nl5M0NoWhl+84NVA9Uq3fN7daAn+E4N7naR2McHiLNd1iwlZlQm+W7p vqtVx4xMNuRFPWFrd3ol4HFw146pAKaUOHIacwdt9LGe2cuSt5o/dai8a5OQP7xa5QApONj0qs+Xn XkvlFYmOZE4gGkILymTwxBv9te6OYA0KHDmdozrnJ49DJihKXG4HHgKxD3dfgDPbheniOV9vIqn0X LNNOe6ow==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wWb0g-0000000DrST-1l5C; Mon, 08 Jun 2026 14:31:26 +0000 Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 15:31:26 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jason Wang , Xuan Zhuo , Eugenio =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E9rez?= , Muchun Song , Oscar Salvador , Andrew Morton , "Liam R. Howlett" , Vlastimil Babka , Mike Rapoport , Suren Baghdasaryan , Michal Hocko , Brendan Jackman , Johannes Weiner , Zi Yan , Baolin Wang , Nico Pache , Ryan Roberts , Dev Jain , Barry Song , Lance Yang , Hugh Dickins , Matthew Brost , Joshua Hahn , Rakie Kim , Byungchul Park , Gregory Price , Ying Huang , Alistair Popple , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Roman Gushchin , Harry Yoo , Axel Rasmussen , Yuanchu Xie , Wei Xu , Chris Li , Kairui Song , Kemeng Shi , Nhat Pham , Baoquan He , virtualization@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 07/37] mm: thread user_addr through page allocator for cache-friendly zeroing Message-ID: References: <50d410b47fe3f45327783e05bd306d5eaab75e65.1780906288.git.mst@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: virtualization@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 04:26:18PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > If that means that we would handle __GFP_ZERO consistently in the callers of > alloc_frozen_pages(), that would also do I guess. We'd still have to pass the > user address down to some degree, through folio interfaces only at least. What I don't understand is how the kernel page allocator needs to know the user address in order to effectively zero it, but the hypervisor is able to zero the page without knowing the user address. It feels like somebody has x86-centric thinking where cache colouring doesn't matter.