[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <92965844-c430-8b8e-d9f1-705d7578bceb@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 16:38:22 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>
CC: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
<mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, <willy@...radead.org>,
<tsahu@...ux.ibm.com>, <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm: clarify folio_set_compound_order() zero
support
On 12/7/22 14:37, Sidhartha Kumar wrote:
> Document hugetlb's use of a zero compound order so support for zero
> orders is not removed from folio_set_compound_order().
>
> Signed-off-by: Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>
> Suggested-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
> Suggested-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
> ---
> This can be folded into f2b67a51d0ef6871d4fb0c3e8199f278112bd108
> mm: add folio dtor and order setter functions
>
> include/linux/mm.h | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index 443d496949a8..cd8508d728f1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -999,9 +999,16 @@ static inline void set_compound_order(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> #endif
> }
>
> +/*
> + * folio_set_compound_order is generally passed a non-zero order to
> + * initialize a large folio. However, hugetlb code abuses this by
> + * passing in zero when 'dissolving' a large folio.
> + */
Wouldn't it be better to instead just create a new function for that
case, such as:
dissolve_large_folio()
?
> static inline void folio_set_compound_order(struct folio *folio,
> unsigned int order)
> {
> + VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio), folio);
> +
> folio->_folio_order = order;
> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> folio->_folio_nr_pages = order ? 1U << order : 0;
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists