On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 04:40:28PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 08:38:15AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 04:32:27PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 08:27:27AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > The case I tested that failed the test was tmpfs with huge pages (not > > > > large folios). So should we then have this: > > > > > > No. > > > > OK so this does have a change for tmpfs with huge pages enabled, do we > > take the position then this is a fix for that? > > You literally said it was a fix just a few messages up thread? > > Besides, the behaviour changes (currently) depending on whether > you specify "within_size" or "always". This patch makes it consistent. The quoted mmap(2) text made me doubt it, and I was looking for clarification. It seems clear now based on feedback the text does not apply to tmpfs with huge pages, and so we'll just annotate it as a fix for tmpfs with huge pages. It makes sense to not apply, I mean, why *would* you assume you will have an extended range zeroed out range to muck around with beyond PAGE_SIZE just because huge pages were used when the rest of all other filesystem APIs count on the mmap(2) PAGE_SIZE boundary. Thanks! Luis
