[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220624084042.GB2070418@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 08:40:43 +0000
From: HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
<naoya.horiguchi@....com>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>
CC: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] mm/hugetlb: make pud_huge() and huge_pud() aware
of non-present pud entry
Sorry, I found that $SUBJECT mentions wrong function name (I meant
follow_huge_pud(), not huge_pud()), this will be fixed in the later version.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 08:51:47AM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
>
> follow_pud_mask() does not support non-present pud entry now. As long as
> I tested on x86_64 server, follow_pud_mask() still simply returns
> no_page_table() for non-present_pud_entry() due to pud_bad(), so no severe
> user-visible effect should happen. But generally we should call
> follow_huge_pud() for non-present pud entry for 1GB hugetlb page.
>
> Update pud_huge() and huge_pud() to handle non-present pud entries. The
here the same typo, too.
- Naoya Horiguchi
> changes are similar to previous works for pud entries commit e66f17ff7177
> ("mm/hugetlb: take page table lock in follow_huge_pmd()") and commit
> cbef8478bee5 ("mm/hugetlb: pmd_huge() returns true for non-present hugepage").
>
> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
> ---
Powered by blists - more mailing lists