lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: hugetlb: kill set_huge_swap_pte_at()
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 12:44:19PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
>
> On 6/27/22 12:25, Qi Zheng wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2022/6/27 14:18, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/26/22 20:27, Qi Zheng wrote:
> >>> The commit e5251fd43007 ("mm/hugetlb: introduce set_huge_swap_pte_at()
> >>> helper") add set_huge_swap_pte_at() to handle swap entries on
> >>> architectures that support hugepages consisting of contiguous ptes.
> >>> And currently the set_huge_swap_pte_at() is only overridden by arm64.
> >>>
> >>> The set_huge_swap_pte_at() provide a sz parameter to help determine
> >>> the number of entries to be updated. But in fact, all hugetlb swap
> >>> entries contain pfn information, so we can find the corresponding
> >>> folio through the pfn recorded in the swap entry, then the folio_size()
> >>> is the number of entries that need to be updated.
> >>>
> >>> And considering that users will easily cause bugs by ignoring the
> >>> difference between set_huge_swap_pte_at() and set_huge_pte_at().
> >>> Let's handle swap entries in set_huge_pte_at() and remove the
> >>> set_huge_swap_pte_at(), then we can call set_huge_pte_at()
> >>> anywhere, which simplifies our coding.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h |  3 ---
> >>>   arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c      | 34 ++++++++++++++++----------------
> >>>   include/linux/hugetlb.h          | 13 ------------
> >>>   mm/hugetlb.c                     |  8 +++-----
> >>>   mm/rmap.c                        | 11 +++--------
> >>>   5 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h
> >>> index 1fd2846dbefe..d20f5da2d76f 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h
> >>> @@ -46,9 +46,6 @@ extern void huge_pte_clear(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> >>>                  pte_t *ptep, unsigned long sz);
> >>>   #define __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET
> >>>   extern pte_t huge_ptep_get(pte_t *ptep);
> >>> -extern void set_huge_swap_pte_at(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> >>> -                 pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte, unsigned long sz);
> >>> -#define set_huge_swap_pte_at set_huge_swap_pte_at
> >>>     void __init arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve(void);
> >>>   diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >>> index c9e076683e5d..58b89b9d13e0 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >>> @@ -238,6 +238,13 @@ static void clear_flush(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >>>       flush_tlb_range(&vma, saddr, addr);
> >>>   }
> >>>   +static inline struct folio *hugetlb_swap_entry_to_folio(swp_entry_t entry)
> >>> +{
> >>> +    VM_BUG_ON(!is_migration_entry(entry) && !is_hwpoison_entry(entry));
> >>> +
> >>> +    return page_folio(pfn_to_page(swp_offset(entry)));
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> Extracting this huge page size from swap entry is an additional operation which
> >> will increase the over all cost for set_huge_swap_pte_at(). At present the size
> >
> > Hmm, I think this cost is very small. And replacing
> > set_huge_swap_pte_at() by transparently handling swap entries helps
> > reduce possible bugs, which is worthwhile.
>
> Possible bugs ? There are just six call sites for this function.

I think it is easy to make mistakes (see commit 5d4af6195c87).
I usually think of why the swap entry is special for HugeTLB pages
compared to normal pages (why we do not have set_swap_pte_at?).
set_huge_swap_pte_at() make HugeTLB more special, killing it
can make HugeTLB more consistent with normal page. From the point
of view of code maintenance, I think it is better to kill it. What
do you think?

Thanks.

> Although this proposed patch is functionally correct, I dont see
> a valid enough reason to increase the overall cost in the path.
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-27 09:46    [W:0.064 / U:15.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site