> On Apr 5, 2024, at 03:58, Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 5:49 AM Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 01:26:50PM -0700, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote: >>> hugetlb_no_page() can use the struct vm_fault passed in from >>> hugetlb_fault(). This alleviates the stack by consolidating 7 >>> variables into a single struct. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vishal Moola (Oracle) <vishal.moola@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> mm/hugetlb.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- >>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c >>> index 360b82374a89..aca2f11b4138 100644 >>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c >>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c >>> @@ -6189,9 +6189,7 @@ static bool hugetlb_pte_stable(struct hstate *h, struct mm_struct *mm, >>> >>> static vm_fault_t hugetlb_no_page(struct mm_struct *mm, >>> struct vm_area_struct *vma, >>> - struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t idx, >>> - unsigned long address, pte_t *ptep, >>> - pte_t old_pte, unsigned int flags, >>> + struct address_space *mapping, >> >> AFAICS all this can be self-contained in vm_fault struct. >> vmf->vma->mm and vmf->vma. >> I mean, if we want to convert this interface, why not going all the way? >> >> Looks a bit odd some fields yes while some others remain. >> >> Or am I missing something? > > Mainly just minimizing code churn, we would either unnecessarily > change multiple lines using vma or have to declare the variables > again anyways (or have extra churn I didn't like). I don't think adding some variables is a problem. I suppose the compiler could do some optimization for us. So I think it is better to pass only one argument vmf to hugetlb_no_page(). Otherwise, LGTM. Muchun, Thanks.
