[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200212075006.GJ7068@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 23:50:06 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 25/25] mm: Align THP mappings for non-DAX
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index b52e007f0856..b8d9e0d76062 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -577,13 +577,10 @@ unsigned long thp_get_unmapped_area(struct file *filp, unsigned long addr,
> unsigned long ret;
> loff_t off = (loff_t)pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> - if (!IS_DAX(filp->f_mapping->host) || !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FS_DAX_PMD))
> - goto out;
> -
> ret = __thp_get_unmapped_area(filp, addr, len, off, flags, PMD_SIZE);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> -out:
> +
> return current->mm->get_unmapped_area(filp, addr, len, pgoff, flags);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(thp_get_unmapped_area);
There is no point in splitting thp_get_unmapped_area and
__thp_get_unmapped_area with this applied (and arguably even before
that). But we still have ext2 and ext4 that use thp_get_unmapped_area but
only support huge page mappings for DAX, do we need to handle those somehow?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists