On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 08:50:20AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 13/03/2024 à 22:47, peterx@xxxxxxxxxx a écrit :
> > From: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Now after we're sure all pXd_huge() definitions are the same as pXd_leaf(),
> > reuse it. Luckily, pXd_huge() isn't widely used.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable-3level.h | 2 +-
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 +-
> > arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 4 ++--
> > arch/loongarch/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 2 +-
> > arch/mips/mm/tlb-r4k.c | 2 +-
> > arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable_64.c | 6 +++---
> > arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c | 4 ++--
> > mm/gup.c | 4 ++--
> > mm/hmm.c | 2 +-
> > mm/memory.c | 2 +-
> > 10 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable-3level.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable-3level.h
> > index e7aecbef75c9..9e3c44f0aea2 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable-3level.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable-3level.h
> > @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ static inline pte_t pte_mkspecial(pte_t pte)
> > #define pmd_dirty(pmd) (pmd_isset((pmd), L_PMD_SECT_DIRTY))
> >
> > #define pmd_hugewillfault(pmd) (!pmd_young(pmd) || !pmd_write(pmd))
> > -#define pmd_thp_or_huge(pmd) (pmd_huge(pmd) || pmd_trans_huge(pmd))
> > +#define pmd_thp_or_huge(pmd) (pmd_leaf(pmd) || pmd_trans_huge(pmd))
>
> Previous patch said pmd_trans_huge() implies pmd_leaf().
Ah here I remember I kept this arm definition there because I think we
should add a patch to drop pmd_thp_or_huge() completely. If you won't mind
I can add one more patch instead of doing it here. Then I keep this patch
purely as a replacement patch without further changes on arch-cleanups.
>
> Or is that only for GUP ?
I think it should apply to all.
>
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > #define pmd_trans_huge(pmd) (pmd_val(pmd) && !pmd_table(pmd))
>
>
> > diff --git a/mm/hmm.c b/mm/hmm.c
> > index c95b9ec5d95f..93aebd9cc130 100644
> > --- a/mm/hmm.c
> > +++ b/mm/hmm.c
> > @@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ static int hmm_vma_walk_pud(pud_t *pudp, unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> > return hmm_vma_walk_hole(start, end, -1, walk);
> > }
> >
> > - if (pud_huge(pud) && pud_devmap(pud)) {
> > + if (pud_leaf(pud) && pud_devmap(pud)) {
>
> Didn't previous patch say devmap implies leaf ? Or is it only for GUP ?
This is an extra safety check that I didn't remove. Devmap used separate
bits even though I'm not clear on why. It should still imply a leaf though.
Thanks,
>
> > unsigned long i, npages, pfn;
> > unsigned int required_fault;
> > unsigned long *hmm_pfns;
>
>
--
Peter Xu
