On 4/7/23 3:04 PM, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 at 11:35, Muhammad Usama Anjum
> <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 4/7/23 12:23 PM, Michał Mirosław wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 23:12, Muhammad Usama Anjum
>>> <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/23 1:12 AM, Michał Mirosław wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 09:40, Muhammad Usama Anjum
>>>>> <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> +static int pagemap_scan_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long start,
>>>>>> + unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk)
>>>>>> +{
>>> [...]
>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
>>>>>> + ptl = pmd_trans_huge_lock(pmd, vma);
>>>>>> + if (ptl) {
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +process_smaller_pages:
>>>>>> + if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> Why pmd_trans_unstable() is needed here and not only after split_huge_pmd()?
>>>> I'm not entirely sure. But the idea is if THP is unstable, we should
>>>> return. As it doesn't seem like after splitting THP can be unstable, we
>>>> should not check it. Do you agree with the following?
>>>
>>> The description of pmd_trans_unstable() [1] seems to indicate that it
>>> is needed only after split_huge_pmd().
>>>
>>> [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.3-rc5/source/include/linux/pgtable.h#L1394
>> Sorry, yeah pmd_trans_unstable() is need after split. But it is also needed
>> in normal case when ptl is NULL to rule out the case if pmd is unstable
>> before performing operation on normal pages:
>>
>> ptl = pmd_trans_huge_lock(pmd, vma);
>> if (ptl) {
>> ...
>> }
>> if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
>> return 0;
>>
>> This file has usage examples of pmd_trans_unstable():
>>
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.3-rc5/source/fs/proc/task_mmu.c#L634
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.3-rc5/source/fs/proc/task_mmu.c#L1195
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.3-rc5/source/fs/proc/task_mmu.c#L1543
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.3-rc5/source/fs/proc/task_mmu.c#L1887
>>
>> So we are good with what we have in this patch.
>
> Shouldn't we signal ACTION_AGAIN then in order to call .pte_hole?
I'm not sure. I've not done research on it if we need to signal
ACTION_AGAIN as this function pagemap_scan_pmd_entry() mimics how
pagemap_pmd_range() handles reads to the pagemap file. pagemap_pmd_range()
isn't doing anything if pmd is unstable. Hence we also not doing anything.
>
> Best Regards
> Michał Mirosław
--
BR,
Muhammad Usama Anjum
