On Thu 23-08-18 10:56:30, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 08/23/2018 10:01 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > On 08/23/2018 05:48 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Tue 21-08-18 18:10:42, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> OK, after burning myself when trying to be clever here it seems like
> >> your proposed solution is indeed simpler.
> >>
> >>> +bool huge_pmd_sharing_possible(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>> + unsigned long *start, unsigned long *end)
> >>> +{
> >>> + unsigned long check_addr = *start;
> >>> + bool ret = false;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE))
> >>> + return ret;
> >>> +
> >>> + for (check_addr = *start; check_addr < *end; check_addr += PUD_SIZE) {
> >>> + unsigned long a_start = check_addr & PUD_MASK;
> >>> + unsigned long a_end = a_start + PUD_SIZE;
> >>
> >> I guess this should be rather in HPAGE_SIZE * PTRS_PER_PTE units as
> >> huge_pmd_unshare does.
> >
> > Sure, I can do that.
>
> On second thought, this is more similar to vma_shareable() which uses
> PUD_MASK and PUD_SIZE. In fact Kirill asked me to put in a common helper
> for this and vma_shareable. So, I would prefer to leave it as PUD* unless
> you feel strongly.
I don't
> IMO, it would make more sense to change this in huge_pmd_unshare as PMD
> sharing is pretty explicitly tied to PUD_SIZE. But, that is a future cleanup.
Fair enough. I didn't realize we are PUD explicit elsewhere. So if you
plan to update huge_pmd_unshare to be in sync then no objections from me
at all. I merely wanted to be in sync with this because it is a central
point to look at wrt pmd sharing.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
