[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0616b909-b851-0f00-2bd9-f86562af6342@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:12:12 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 9/9] mm/hugetlb: Introduce hugetlb_walk()
On 16.12.22 16:52, Peter Xu wrote:
> huge_pte_offset() is the main walker function for hugetlb pgtables. The
> name is not really representing what it does, though.
>
> Instead of renaming it, introduce a wrapper function called hugetlb_walk()
> which will use huge_pte_offset() inside. Assert on the locks when walking
> the pgtable.
>
> Note, the vma lock assertion will be a no-op for private mappings.
>
> Document the last special case in the page_vma_mapped_walk() path where we
> don't need any more lock to call hugetlb_walk().
That looks cleaner and the lock assertions are IMHO a very good idea.
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists