Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] mm: introduce skip_none_ptes()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 2024/11/15 05:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 14.11.24 13:51, Qi Zheng wrote:


On 2024/11/14 20:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 14.11.24 10:20, Qi Zheng wrote:


On 2024/11/14 16:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:

    static unsigned long zap_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
                    struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
                    unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
@@ -1682,13 +1704,17 @@ static unsigned long zap_pte_range(struct
mmu_gather *tlb,
            pte_t ptent = ptep_get(pte);
            int max_nr;
-        nr = 1;
-        if (pte_none(ptent))
-            continue;
-
            if (need_resched())
                break;
+        nr = skip_none_ptes(pte, addr, end);
+        if (nr) {
+            addr += PAGE_SIZE * nr;
+            if (addr == end)
+                break;
+            pte += nr;
+        }
+
            max_nr = (end - addr) / PAGE_SIZE;

I dislike calculating max_nr twice, once here and once in skip_non_ptes.

Further, you're missing to update ptent here.

Oh, my bad. However, with [PATCH v3 5/9], there will be no problem, but
there are still two ptep_get() and max_nr calculation.

If you inline it you can
avoid another ptep_get().

Do you mean to inline the skip_none_ptes() into do_zap_pte_range()?

Effectively moving this patch after #5, and have it be something like:

diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 1949f5e0fece5..4f5d1e4c6688e 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -1667,8 +1667,21 @@ static inline int do_zap_pte_range(struct
mmu_gather *tlb,
          pte_t ptent = ptep_get(pte);
          int max_nr = (end - addr) / PAGE_SIZE;

-       if (pte_none(ptent))
-               return 1;
+       /* Skip all consecutive pte_none(). */
+       if (pte_none(ptent)) {
+               int nr;
+
+               for (nr = 1; nr < max_nr; nr++) {
+                       ptent = ptep_get(pte + nr);
+                       if (!pte_none(ptent))
+                               break;
+               }
+               max_nr -= nr;
+               if (!max_nr)
+                       return nr;
+               pte += nr;
+               addr += nr * PAGE_SIZE;
+       }

          if (pte_present(ptent))
                  return zap_present_ptes(tlb, vma, pte, ptent, max_nr,


In the context of this patch this makes most sense.

Regarding "count_pte_none" comment, I assume you talk about patch #7.

Yes.


Can't you simply return the number of pte_none that you skipped here
using another
input variable, if really required?

Suppose we add an input variable nr_skip to do_zap_pte_range(), you mean
to return the above nr to zap_pte_range() through:

Maybe "cur_none_nr" or something similar.

OK.



*nr_skip = nr;

and then:

zap_pte_range
--> nr = do_zap_pte_range(tlb, vma, pte, addr, end, details, &skip_nr,
                         rss, &force_flush, &force_break);
      if (can_reclaim_pt) {
          none_nr += count_pte_none(pte, nr);
          none_nr += nr_skip;
      }

Right?

Yes. I did not look closely at the patch that adds the counting of

Got it.

pte_none though (to digest why it is required :) ).

Because 'none_nr == PTRS_PER_PTE' is used in patch #7 to detect
empty PTE page.

Looking forward to your more review feedback on this series.

Thanks!






[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux