linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm: clarify folio_set_compound

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <23fa4ffa-965a-da80-e8b5-73ae92dc5767@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 13:20:41 -0800
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
CC:     Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>, <tsahu@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm: clarify folio_set_compound_order() zero
 support

On 12/9/22 13:10, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 12/9/22 06:27, Muchun Song wrote:
>>  From you advise, I think we can remove VM_BUG_ON and handle non-zero
>> order page, something like:
> 
> Yes, and thanks for summarizing all the individual feedback into a
> proposed solution.
> 
> If we go this route, then I'd suggest a little note above the function,
> such as:
> 
> /*
>   * For non-large folios, this will have no effect, other than possibly
>   * generating a warning, if the caller attempts to set a non-zero folio order
>   * for a non-large folio.
>   */
> 
>> static inline void folio_set_order(struct folio *folio,
>>                            unsigned int order)
>> {
>>     if (!folio_test_large(folio)) {
>>         WARN_ON(order);

Although, on second thought...I'm still a little confused about why
keeping the same name is so important?

A very direct approach that has more accurate naming (and therefore no
need for a strange comment explaining the behavior) would be:


static inline void large_folio_set_order(struct folio *folio,
					 unsigned int order)
{
	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio_test_large(folio)))
		return;

	folio->_folio_order = order;
#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
	folio->_folio_nr_pages = order ? 1U << order : 0;
#endif
}


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA