On 30/08/2023 12:13, Joao Martins wrote: > On 30/08/2023 09:09, Muchun Song wrote: >> On 2023/8/26 03:04, Mike Kravetz wrote: >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * We are only splitting, not remapping the hugetlb vmemmap >>> + * pages. >>> + */ >>> + if (bulk) >>> + continue; >> >> Actually, we don not need a flag to detect this situation, you could >> use "!@walk->remap_pte" to determine whether we should go into the >> next level traversal of the page table. ->remap_pte is used to traverse >> the pte entry, so it make senses to continue to the next pmd entry if >> it is NULL. >> > > Yeap, great suggestion. > >>> + >>> vmemmap_pte_range(pmd, addr, next, walk); >>> } while (pmd++, addr = next, addr != end); >>> @@ -197,7 +211,8 @@ static int vmemmap_remap_range(unsigned long start, >>> unsigned long end, >>> return ret; >>> } while (pgd++, addr = next, addr != end); >>> - flush_tlb_kernel_range(start, end); >>> + if (!(walk->flags & VMEMMAP_REMAP_ONLY_SPLIT)) >>> + flush_tlb_kernel_range(start, end); >> >> This could be: >> >> if (walk->remap_pte) >> flush_tlb_kernel_range(start, end); >> > Yeap. > Quite correction: This stays as is, except with a flag rename. That is because this is actual flush that we intend to batch in the next patch. And while the PMD split could just use !walk->remap_pte, the next patch would just need to test NO_TLB_FLUSH flag. Meaning we endup anyways just testing for this to-be-consolidated flag
