On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Huang, Ying wrote: > --- a/mm/memory.c > +++ b/mm/memory.c > @@ -4374,9 +4374,31 @@ void clear_huge_page(struct page *page, > } > > might_sleep(); > - for (i = 0; i < pages_per_huge_page; i++) { > + VM_BUG_ON(clamp(addr_hint, addr, addr + > + (pages_per_huge_page << PAGE_SHIFT)) != addr_hint); > + n = (addr_hint - addr) / PAGE_SIZE; > + if (2 * n <= pages_per_huge_page) { > + base = 0; > + l = n; > + for (i = pages_per_huge_page - 1; i >= 2 * n; i--) { > + cond_resched(); > + clear_user_highpage(page + i, addr + i * PAGE_SIZE); > + } I really like the idea behind the patch but this is not clearing from last to first byte of the huge page. What seems to be happening here is clearing from the last page to the first page and I would think that within each page the clearing is from first byte to last byte. Maybe more gains can be had by really clearing from last to first byte of the huge page instead of this jumping over 4k addresses? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>