On 10.10.24 08:10, Kefeng Wang wrote:
Add thp_vma_disabled() helper to shared by shmem_allowable_huge_orders()
and __thp_vma_allowable_orders().
Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/huge_mm.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
mm/huge_memory.c | 13 +------------
mm/shmem.c | 7 +------
3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
index 795df660efa5..d77891332b35 100644
--- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
@@ -309,6 +309,25 @@ struct thpsize {
(transparent_hugepage_flags & \
(1<<TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_USE_ZERO_PAGE_FLAG))
+static inline bool thp_vma_disabled(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
+ unsigned long vm_flags)
+{
+ /*
+ * Explicitly disabled through madvise or prctl, or some
+ * architectures may disable THP for some mappings, for
+ * example, s390 kvm.
+ */
+ if (vma && ((vm_flags & VM_NOHUGEPAGE) ||
+ test_bit(MMF_DISABLE_THP, &vma->vm_mm->flags)))
+ return true;
+
+ /* If the hardware/firmware marked hugepage support disabled. */
+ if (transparent_hugepage_flags & (1 << TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_UNSUPPORTED))
+ return true;
+
+ return false;
+}
+
Should we call this "vma_thp_disabled()" ?
Also, I wonder if it would be more natural to check for the opposite ...
"vma_thp_enabled()", like we test for "allowed" and "suitable".
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
