On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 11:31:27AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 04:40:33PM +0200, Gal Pressman wrote: > > Hi Peter & Jason, > > Hi, Gal, Jason, > > > > > It seems the hugetlb part was overlooked? > > We're testing if the RDMA fork MADV_DONTFORK stuff can be removed on appropriate > > kernels, but our tests still fail due to lacking explicit huge pages support [1]. > > I didn't think it high priority only because I think most hugetlbfs users > should be using it shared, but maybe I'm wrong.. Then it got lost indeed. It turns out people are doing this: mmap(NULL, SEND_BUFF_SIZE, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_HUGETLB, -1, 0) Which makes some sense... Gal, you could also MADV_DONTFORK this range if you are explicitly allocating them via special mmap. Jason
