On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:24:34PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 03/19/2018 07:00 PM, jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > There is no point in differentiating between a range for which there
> > is not even a directory (and thus entries) and empty entry (pte_none()
> > or pmd_none() returns true).
> >
> > Simply drop the distinction ie remove HMM_PFN_EMPTY flag and merge now
> > duplicate hmm_vma_walk_hole() and hmm_vma_walk_clear() functions.
> >
> > Changed since v1:
> > - Improved comments
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Evgeny Baskakov <ebaskakov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Mark Hairgrove <mhairgrove@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/hmm.h | 8 +++-----
> > mm/hmm.c | 45 +++++++++++++++------------------------------
> > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/hmm.h b/include/linux/hmm.h
> > index 54d684fe3b90..cf283db22106 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/hmm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/hmm.h
> > @@ -84,7 +84,6 @@ struct hmm;
> > * HMM_PFN_VALID: pfn is valid. It has, at least, read permission.
> > * HMM_PFN_WRITE: CPU page table has write permission set
> > * HMM_PFN_ERROR: corresponding CPU page table entry points to poisoned memory
> > - * HMM_PFN_EMPTY: corresponding CPU page table entry is pte_none()
> > * HMM_PFN_SPECIAL: corresponding CPU page table entry is special; i.e., the
> > * result of vm_insert_pfn() or vm_insert_page(). Therefore, it should not
> > * be mirrored by a device, because the entry will never have HMM_PFN_VALID
> > @@ -94,10 +93,9 @@ struct hmm;
> > #define HMM_PFN_VALID (1 << 0)
> > #define HMM_PFN_WRITE (1 << 1)
> > #define HMM_PFN_ERROR (1 << 2)
> > -#define HMM_PFN_EMPTY (1 << 3)
>
> Hi Jerome,
>
> Nearly done with this one...see below for a bit more detail, but I think if we did this:
>
> #define HMM_PFN_EMPTY (0)
>
> ...it would work out nicely.
>
> > -#define HMM_PFN_SPECIAL (1 << 4)
> > -#define HMM_PFN_DEVICE_UNADDRESSABLE (1 << 5)
> > -#define HMM_PFN_SHIFT 6
> > +#define HMM_PFN_SPECIAL (1 << 3)
> > +#define HMM_PFN_DEVICE_UNADDRESSABLE (1 << 4)
> > +#define HMM_PFN_SHIFT 5
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > @@ -438,7 +423,7 @@ static int hmm_vma_walk_pmd(pmd_t *pmdp,
> > pfns[i] = 0;
> >
> > if (pte_none(pte)) {
> > - pfns[i] = HMM_PFN_EMPTY;
> > + pfns[i] = 0;
>
> This works, but why not keep HMM_PFN_EMPTY, and just define it as zero?
> Symbols are better than raw numbers here.
>
The last patch do that so i don't think it is worth respinning
just to make this intermediate state prettier.
Cheers,
Jérôme
