On Nov 11, 2022, at 3:26 PM, Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This series addresses the issue first reported in [1], and fully > described in patch 3. While exploring solutions to this issue, > related problems with mmu notification calls were discovered. The > first two patches address those issues. > > Previous discussions suggested further cleanup by removing the > routine zap_page_range. This is possible because zap_page_range_single > is now exported, and all callers of zap_page_range pass ranges entirely > within a single vma. This work will be done in a later patch so as not > to distract from this bug fix. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAO4mrfdLMXsao9RF4fUE8-Wfde8xmjsKrTNMNC9wjUb6JudD0g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Mike Kravetz (3): > madvise: use zap_page_range_single for madvise dontneed > hugetlb: remove duplicate mmu notifications > hugetlb: don't delete vma_lock in hugetlb MADV_DONTNEED processing > > include/linux/mm.h | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++-------- > mm/hugetlb.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > mm/madvise.c | 6 +++--- > mm/memory.c | 25 ++++++++++++------------- > 4 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) With my limited knowledge of hugetlbfs, it all looks good. Having said that - 2 random thoughts: 1. It is more intuitive to me to have mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_{start|end}() next to tlb_{start|end}_vma(). I think that one day these two should have been combined into a single function, which could have also executed adjust_range_if_pmd_sharing_possible() as needed. 2. If you still have a concern of exposing zap_details as you had in the past (not that I care), consider putting zap_details and zap_page_range_single() in mm/internal.h. Thanks, Nadav
