[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a01dfe1f-cbbb-9546-d366-d959cbc96699@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:07:24 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Bin Yang <bin.yang@...el.com>,
Mark Gross <mark.gross@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 08/11] x86/mm/cpa: Add sanity check for existing
mappings
On 09/17/2018 07:29 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> + /*
> + * If this is splitting a PMD, fix it up. PUD splits cannot be
> + * fixed trivially as that would require to rescan the newly
> + * installed PMD mappings after returning from split_large_page()
> + * so an eventual further split can allocate the necessary PTE
> + * pages. Warn for now and revisit it in case this actually
> + * happens.
> + */
> + if (size == PAGE_SIZE)
> + ref_prot = prot;
> + else
> + pr_warn_once("CPA: Cannot fixup static protections for PUD split\n");
> +set:
> + set_pte(pte, pfn_pte(pfn, ref_prot));
> +}
This looked a _little_ bit funky to me. It talks about splitting up
PMDs and PUDs, but it wasn't immediately obvious why it never looks for
PMD or PUD sizes.
It's because split_set_pte()'s "size" is the size we are splitting *to*.
IOW, a PMD split gets PAGE_SIZE and a PUD split gets PMD_SIZE. It's
obvious with a bit more context, so it might be handy to include a blurb
in the comment about what 'size' is *of*.
Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists