On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:21:25PM +0800, Li Xinhai wrote:
> The current code would unnecessarily expand the address range. Consider
> one example, (start, end) = (1G-2M, 3G+2M), and (vm_start, vm_end) =
> (1G-4M, 3G+4M), the expected adjustment should be keep (1G-2M, 3G+2M)
> without expand. But the current result will be (1G-4M, 3G+4M). Actually,
> the range (1G-4M, 1G) and (3G, 3G+4M) would never been involved in pmd
> sharing.
>
> After this patch, if pud aligned *start across vm_start, then we know the
> *start and vm_start are in same pud_index, and vm_start is not pud
> aligned, so don't adjust *start. Same logic applied to *end.
>
> Fixes: commit 75802ca66354 ("mm/hugetlb: fix calculation of adjust_range_if_pmd_sharing_possible")
> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Li Xinhai <lixinhai.lxh@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/hugetlb.c | 13 +++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index cbf32d2824fd..d1e9ea55b7e6 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -5249,11 +5249,16 @@ void adjust_range_if_pmd_sharing_possible(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> a_end = ALIGN(*end, PUD_SIZE);
>
> /*
> - * Intersect the range with the vma range, since pmd sharing won't be
> - * across vma after all
> + * If the PUD aligned address across vma range, then it means the
> + * vm_start/vm_end is not PUD aligned. In that case, we must don't
> + * adjust range because pmd sharing is not possbile at the start and/or
> + * end part of vma.
> */
> - *start = max(vma->vm_start, a_start);
> - *end = min(vma->vm_end, a_end);
> + if (a_start >= vma->vm_start)
> + *start = a_start;
> +
> + if (a_end <= vma->vm_end)
> + *end = a_end;
> }
Looks correct, thanks.
Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Peter Xu
