On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:00:36 -0700 Zi Shen Lim zishen.lim@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Anders Roxell anders.roxell@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
On 2013-09-30 11:48, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
Signed-off-by: Zi Shen Lim zishen.lim@linaro.org
linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf b/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf index 947ca1f..0093640 100644 --- a/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf +++ b/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf @@ -92,3 +92,7 @@ CONFIG_HW_PERF_EVENTS=y CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER=y CONFIG_ENABLE_DEFAULT_TRACERS=y CONFIG_PROC_DEVICETREE=y +CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE=y +CONFIG_HUGETLBFS=y +CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=y +CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_MADVISE=y
This CONFIG_* fragments are already in linaro/configs/linaro-base64.conf right?
Isn't linaro-base64.conf meant for ARMv8?
We need hugepage support on existing 32-bit / ARMv7 platforms too, don't we?
[adding linaro-kernel, Andrey]
Yes, it seems the base64 component is a misnomer, at least for now.
Meanwhile, if this patch is targeted to the main linaro kernel, please send via the linaro-kernel list, cc'ing linaro-networking. If not, then perhaps a separate .conf file is in order? Anyway, I think we'd all prefer a resolution within the main linaro kernel for hugepage support.
and we are building with it in our ci/job/linux-lng* scripts...
perhaps those should be patched as well.
Kim
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Kim Phillips kim.phillips@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:00:36 -0700 Zi Shen Lim zishen.lim@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Anders Roxell anders.roxell@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
On 2013-09-30 11:48, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
Signed-off-by: Zi Shen Lim zishen.lim@linaro.org
linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf b/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf index 947ca1f..0093640 100644 --- a/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf +++ b/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf @@ -92,3 +92,7 @@ CONFIG_HW_PERF_EVENTS=y CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER=y CONFIG_ENABLE_DEFAULT_TRACERS=y CONFIG_PROC_DEVICETREE=y +CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE=y +CONFIG_HUGETLBFS=y +CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=y +CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_MADVISE=y
This CONFIG_* fragments are already in linaro/configs/linaro-base64.conf right?
Isn't linaro-base64.conf meant for ARMv8?
We need hugepage support on existing 32-bit / ARMv7 platforms too, don't we?
[adding linaro-kernel, Andrey]
Yes, it seems the base64 component is a misnomer, at least for now.
Meanwhile, if this patch is targeted to the main linaro kernel, please send via the linaro-kernel list, cc'ing linaro-networking. If not, then perhaps a separate .conf file is in order? Anyway, I think we'd all prefer a resolution within the main linaro kernel for hugepage support.
Andrey, which approach do you prefer? 1. applying this patch in main linaro/configs 2. maintaining hugepage as a separate config fragment 3. applying this patch only in LNG
Let me know if you want me to respin the patch. Thanks.
and we are building with it in our ci/job/linux-lng* scripts...
perhaps those should be patched as well.
Kim
Hi Zi Shen,
On 10/01/2013 12:09 AM, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Kim Phillips kim.phillips@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:00:36 -0700 Zi Shen Lim zishen.lim@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Anders Roxell anders.roxell@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
On 2013-09-30 11:48, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
Signed-off-by: Zi Shen Lim zishen.lim@linaro.org
linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf b/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf index 947ca1f..0093640 100644 --- a/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf +++ b/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf @@ -92,3 +92,7 @@ CONFIG_HW_PERF_EVENTS=y CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER=y CONFIG_ENABLE_DEFAULT_TRACERS=y CONFIG_PROC_DEVICETREE=y +CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE=y +CONFIG_HUGETLBFS=y +CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=y +CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_MADVISE=y
This CONFIG_* fragments are already in linaro/configs/linaro-base64.conf right?
Isn't linaro-base64.conf meant for ARMv8?
We need hugepage support on existing 32-bit / ARMv7 platforms too, don't we?
[adding linaro-kernel, Andrey]
Yes, it seems the base64 component is a misnomer, at least for now.
Meanwhile, if this patch is targeted to the main linaro kernel, please send via the linaro-kernel list, cc'ing linaro-networking. If not, then perhaps a separate .conf file is in order? Anyway, I think we'd all prefer a resolution within the main linaro kernel for hugepage support.
Andrey, which approach do you prefer?
- applying this patch in main linaro/configs
- maintaining hugepage as a separate config fragment
I would start from a separate config fragment. Not sure if HUGETLB and TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE would be good for all the builds. Later, if every 32-bit build start using it, the hugepage config fragment could be merged into linaro-base.conf. linaro-base64.conf is a special case, as there is only one ARMv8 board in Linaro builds atm - this would be revisited when more ARMv8 targets arrive.
- applying this patch only in LNG
Let me know if you want me to respin the patch. Thanks.
You would need a new patch. It should create a new config fragment instead of modifying linaro-base.conf.
Thanks, Andrey
and we are building with it in our ci/job/linux-lng* scripts...
perhaps those should be patched as well.
Kim
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Andrey Konovalov andrey.konovalov@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Zi Shen,
On 10/01/2013 12:09 AM, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Kim Phillips kim.phillips@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:00:36 -0700 Zi Shen Lim zishen.lim@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Anders Roxell anders.roxell@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
On 2013-09-30 11:48, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
Signed-off-by: Zi Shen Lim zishen.lim@linaro.org
linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf b/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf index 947ca1f..0093640 100644 --- a/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf +++ b/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf @@ -92,3 +92,7 @@ CONFIG_HW_PERF_EVENTS=y CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER=y CONFIG_ENABLE_DEFAULT_TRACERS=y CONFIG_PROC_DEVICETREE=y +CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE=y +CONFIG_HUGETLBFS=y +CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=y +CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_MADVISE=y
This CONFIG_* fragments are already in linaro/configs/linaro-base64.conf right?
Isn't linaro-base64.conf meant for ARMv8?
We need hugepage support on existing 32-bit / ARMv7 platforms too, don't we?
[adding linaro-kernel, Andrey]
Yes, it seems the base64 component is a misnomer, at least for now.
Meanwhile, if this patch is targeted to the main linaro kernel, please send via the linaro-kernel list, cc'ing linaro-networking. If not, then perhaps a separate .conf file is in order? Anyway, I think we'd all prefer a resolution within the main linaro kernel for hugepage support.
Andrey, which approach do you prefer?
- applying this patch in main linaro/configs
- maintaining hugepage as a separate config fragment
I would start from a separate config fragment. Not sure if HUGETLB and TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE would be good for all the builds. Later, if every 32-bit build start using it, the hugepage config fragment could be merged into linaro-base.conf. linaro-base64.conf is a special case, as there is only one ARMv8 board in Linaro builds atm - this would be revisited when more ARMv8 targets arrive.
- applying this patch only in LNG
Let me know if you want me to respin the patch. Thanks.
You would need a new patch. It should create a new config fragment instead of modifying linaro-base.conf.
Agreed. I'll post an updated patch.
Thanks, Andrey
and we are building with it in our ci/job/linux-lng* scripts...
perhaps those should be patched as well.
Kim
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
-
Andrey Konovalov -
Kim Phillips -
Zi Shen Lim