[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c9d0f1b9-dbc7-ddf2-18f9-2b1a991d4932@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 18:14:45 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: do not update address in
huge_pmd_unshare
On 5/28/2022 6:58 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> As an optimization for loops sequentially processing hugetlb address
> ranges, huge_pmd_unshare would update a passed address if it unshared a
> pmd. Updating a loop control variable outside the loop like this is
> generally a bad idea. These loops are now using hugetlb_mask_last_hp
> to optimize scanning when non-present ptes are discovered. The same
> can be done when huge_pmd_unshare returns 1 indicating a pmd was
> unshared.
>
> Remove address update from huge_pmd_unshare. Change the passed argument
> type and update all callers. In loops sequentially processing addresses
> use hugetlb_mask_last_hp to update address if pmd is unshared.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
LGTM. Please feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists