On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 01:53:24PM -0700, Vishal Moola wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 1:26 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:04:28AM -0700, Vishal Moola wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 2:10 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static inline struct ptdesc *ptdesc_alloc(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int order)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct page *page = alloc_pages(gfp | __GFP_COMP, order);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return page_ptdesc(page);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static inline void ptdesc_free(struct ptdesc *pt)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct page *page = ptdesc_page(pt);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + __free_pages(page, compound_order(page));
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > The ptdesc_{alloc,free} API does not sound right to me. The name
> > > > ptdesc_alloc() implies the allocation of the ptdesc itself, rather than
> > > > allocation of page table page. The same goes for free.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I see the difference. Could you elaborate?
> >
> > I read ptdesc_alloc() as "allocate a ptdesc" rather than as "allocate a
> > page for page table and return ptdesc pointing to that page". Seems very
> > confusing to me already and it will be even more confusion when we'll start
> > allocating actual ptdescs.
>
> Hmm, I see what you're saying. I'm envisioning this function evolving into
> one that allocates a ptdesc later. I don't see why we would need to have both a
> page table page AND ptdesc at any point, but that may be a lack of knowledge
> from my part.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, by "page table page" I meant the page (or memory
for that matter) for actual page table rather than struct page describing
that memory.
So what we allocate here is the actual memory for the page tables and not
the memory for the metadata. That's why I think the name ptdesc_alloc is
confusing.
> I was thinking later, if necessary, we could make another function
> (only to be used internally) to allocate page table pages.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
