lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] hugetlb: simplify hugetlb handling in follow_page_mask
From


On 8/31/2022 2:39 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 08/30/22 09:44, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 08/30/22 09:06, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> On 8/30/2022 7:40 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>> During discussions of this series [1], it was suggested that hugetlb
>>>> handling code in follow_page_mask could be simplified. At the beginning
>>>> of follow_page_mask, there currently is a call to follow_huge_addr which
>>>> 'may' handle hugetlb pages. ia64 is the only architecture which provides
>>>> a follow_huge_addr routine that does not return error. Instead, at each
>>>> level of the page table a check is made for a hugetlb entry. If a hugetlb
>>>> entry is found, a call to a routine associated with that entry is made.
>>>>
>>>> Currently, there are two checks for hugetlb entries at each page table
>>>> level. The first check is of the form:
>>>> if (p?d_huge())
>>>> page = follow_huge_p?d();
>>>> the second check is of the form:
>>>> if (is_hugepd())
>>>> page = follow_huge_pd().
>>>>
>>>> We can replace these checks, as well as the special handling routines
>>>> such as follow_huge_p?d() and follow_huge_pd() with a single routine to
>>>> handle hugetlb vmas.
>>>>
>>>> A new routine hugetlb_follow_page_mask is called for hugetlb vmas at the
>>>> beginning of follow_page_mask. hugetlb_follow_page_mask will use the
>>>> existing routine huge_pte_offset to walk page tables looking for hugetlb
>>>> entries. huge_pte_offset can be overwritten by architectures, and already
>>>> handles special cases such as hugepd entries.
>>>
>>> Could you also mention that this patch will fix the lock issue for
>>> CONT-PTE/PMD hugetlb by changing to use huge_pte_lock()? which will help
>>> people to understand the issue.
>>
>> Will update message in v2. Thanks for taking a look!
>>
>
> One additional thought, we 'may' need a separate patch to fix the locking
> issues that can be easily backported. Not sure this 'simplification' is
> a good backport candidate.

Yes, that was my thought before, but David did not like adding more
make-legacy-cruft-happy code.

So how about creating a series that contains 3 patches: picking up patch
1 and patch 3 of my previous series [1], and your current patch? That
means patch 1 and patch 2 in this series can fix the lock issue
explicitly and be suitable to backport, meanwhile patch 3 (which is your
current patch) will cleanup the legacy code.

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1661240170.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-31 03:08    [W:0.260 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site