On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 10:18:11AM +0000, James Houghton wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > +static int hugetlb_hgm_walk_uninit(struct hugetlb_pte *hpte,
>
> Nitpick on the name: the "uninit" can be misread into pairing with some
> other "init()" calls..
>
> How about just call it hugetlb_hgm_walk (since it's the higher level API
> comparing to the existing one)? Then the existing hugetlb_hgm_walk can be
> called hugetlb_hgm_do_walk/__hugetlb_hgm_walk since it's one level down.
>
> > + pte_t *ptep,
> > + struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > + unsigned long addr,
> > + unsigned long target_sz,
> > + bool alloc)
> > +{
> > + struct hstate *h = hstate_vma(vma);
> > +
> > + hugetlb_pte_populate(vma->vm_mm, hpte, ptep, huge_page_shift(h),
> > + hpage_size_to_level(huge_page_size(h)));
>
> Another nitpick on name: I remembered we used to reach a consensus of using
> hugetlb_pte_init before? Can we still avoid the word "populate" (if "init"
> is not suitable since it can be updated during stepping, how about "setup")?
Right, we did talk about this, sorry. Ok I'll go ahead with this name change.
- hugetlb_hgm_walk => __hugetlb_hgm_walk
- hugetlb_hgm_walk_uninit => hugetlb_hgm_walk
- [__,]hugetlb_pte_populate => [__,]hugetlb_pte_init
>
> [...]
>
> > +int hugetlb_walk_step(struct mm_struct *mm, struct hugetlb_pte *hpte,
> > + unsigned long addr, unsigned long sz)
> > +{
> > + pte_t *ptep;
> > + spinlock_t *ptl;
> > +
> > + switch (hpte->level) {
> > + case HUGETLB_LEVEL_PUD:
> > + ptep = (pte_t *)hugetlb_alloc_pmd(mm, hpte, addr);
> > + if (IS_ERR(ptep))
> > + return PTR_ERR(ptep);
> > + hugetlb_pte_populate(mm, hpte, ptep, PMD_SHIFT,
> > + HUGETLB_LEVEL_PMD);
> > + break;
> > + case HUGETLB_LEVEL_PMD:
> > + ptep = hugetlb_alloc_pte(mm, hpte, addr);
> > + if (IS_ERR(ptep))
> > + return PTR_ERR(ptep);
> > + ptl = pte_lockptr(mm, (pmd_t *)hpte->ptep);
> > + __hugetlb_pte_populate(hpte, ptep, PAGE_SHIFT,
> > + HUGETLB_LEVEL_PTE, ptl);
> > + hpte->ptl = ptl;
>
> This line seems to be superfluous (even if benign).
Nice catch! It shouldn't be there; I accidentally left it in when I
changed how `ptl` was handled.
Thanks Peter!
