Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On 19/12/2019 11:43, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>> Exposing the pud/pgd levels of the page tables to walk_page_range() means
>>> we may come across the exotic large mappings that come with large areas
>>> of contiguous memory (such as the kernel's linear map).
>>>
>>> For architectures that don't provide all p?d_leaf() macros, provide
>>> generic do nothing default that are suitable where there cannot be leaf
>>> pages at that level. Futher patches will add implementations for
>>> individual architectures.
>>>
>>> The name p?d_leaf() is chosen to minimize the confusion with existing
>>> uses of "large" pages and "huge" pages which do not necessary mean that
>>> the entry is a leaf (for example it may be a set of contiguous entries
>>> that only take 1 TLB slot). For the purpose of walking the page tables
>>> we don't need to know how it will be represented in the TLB, but we do
>>> need to know for sure if it is a leaf of the tree.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx>
>>> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> include/asm-generic/pgtable.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/pgtable.h b/include/asm-generic/pgtable.h
>>> index 798ea36a0549..e2e2bef07dd2 100644
>>> --- a/include/asm-generic/pgtable.h
>>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/pgtable.h
>>> @@ -1238,4 +1238,24 @@ static inline bool arch_has_pfn_modify_check(void)
>>> #define mm_pmd_folded(mm) __is_defined(__PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED)
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * p?d_leaf() - true if this entry is a final mapping to a physical address.
>>> + * This differs from p?d_huge() by the fact that they are always available (if
>>> + * the architecture supports large pages at the appropriate level) even
>>> + * if CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE is not defined.
>>> + * Only meaningful when called on a valid entry.
>>> + */
>>> +#ifndef pgd_leaf
>>> +#define pgd_leaf(x) 0
>>> +#endif
>>> +#ifndef p4d_leaf
>>> +#define p4d_leaf(x) 0
>>> +#endif
>>> +#ifndef pud_leaf
>>> +#define pud_leaf(x) 0
>>> +#endif
>>> +#ifndef pmd_leaf
>>> +#define pmd_leaf(x) 0
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Any reason you made these #defines rather than static inlines?
>
> No strong reason - but these have to be #defines in the arch overrides
> so the #ifndef works, so I was being consistent here.
We handle that usually just with eg:
static inline bool pgd_leaf(pgd_t pgd)
{
...
}
#define pgd_leaf pgd_leaf
> I guess a static inline might avoid warnings although I haven't seen
> any.
If anything I'd expect it to cause warnings, for example if someone is
doing pgd_leaf(pmd), but that would be good to catch.
cheers
