On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 12:21:26AM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote: > > Hmm, the thing is.. to me FOLL_SPLIT_PMD should have similar effect to explicit > > call split_huge_pmd_address(), afaict. Since both of them use __split_huge_pmd() > > internally which will generate that unwanted CLEAR notify. > > Agree that gup calls __split_huge_pmd() via split_huge_pmd_address() > which will always CLEAR. However gup only calls split_huge_pmd_address() if it > finds a thp pmd. In follow_pmd_mask() we have: > > if (likely(!pmd_trans_huge(pmdval))) > return follow_page_pte(vma, address, pmd, flags, &ctx->pgmap); > > So I don't think we have a problem here. Sorry I didn't follow here.. We do FOLL_SPLIT_PMD after this check, right? I mean, if it's a thp for the current mm, afaict pmd_trans_huge() should return true above, so we'll skip follow_page_pte(); then we'll check FOLL_SPLIT_PMD and do the split, then the CLEAR notify. Hmm.. Did I miss something? -- Peter Xu _______________________________________________ Nouveau mailing list Nouveau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau
