On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 01:14:41PM -0800, Sidhartha Kumar wrote: > @@ -5599,9 +5603,9 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_wp(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma, > goto out_release_all; > } > > - copy_user_huge_page(new_page, old_page, address, vma, > + copy_user_huge_page(&new_folio->page, old_page, address, vma, > pages_per_huge_page(h)); We have a folio_copy(), but it feels to me like we need a folio_copy_user() so that we can use copy_user_page() on machines with virtual caches. > @@ -6176,6 +6186,7 @@ int hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, > spinlock_t *ptl; > int ret = -ENOMEM; > struct page *page; > + struct folio *folio = NULL; > int writable; > bool page_in_pagecache = false; > > @@ -6251,12 +6262,15 @@ int hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, > *pagep = NULL; > } > > + if (page) > + folio = page_folio(page); > + > /* > - * The memory barrier inside __SetPageUptodate makes sure that > + * The memory barrier inside __folio_mark_uptodate makes sure that > * preceding stores to the page contents become visible before > * the set_pte_at() write. > */ > - __SetPageUptodate(page); > + __folio_mark_uptodate(folio); I suggest that "page" can never be NULL or __SetPageUptodate() would have crashed.
