On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 02:11:58PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 01:08:10AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 01:17:57PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 04:30:04PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > - migrate_page_move_mapping() has to be converted too. > > > > > > I think that's as simple as: > > > > > > +++ b/mm/migrate.c > > > @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ int migrate_page_move_mapping(struct address_space *mapping, > > > > > > for (i = 1; i < HPAGE_PMD_NR; i++) { > > > xas_next(&xas); > > > - xas_store(&xas, newpage + i); > > > + xas_store(&xas, newpage); > > > } > > > } > > > > > > > > > or do you see something else I missed? > > > > Looks right to me. > > > > BTW, maybe some add syntax sugar from XArray side? > > > > Replace the loop and xas_store() before it with: > > > > xas_fill(&xas, newpage, 1UL << compound_order(newpage)); > > > > or something similar? > > If we were keeping this code longterm, then yes, something like that > would be great. I'm hoping this code is a mere stepping stone towards > using multi-slot entries for the page cache. Fair enough. -- Kirill A. Shutemov