[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZV90JcnQ1RGud/0R@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:47:49 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 06/12] mm/gup: Drop folio_fast_pin_allowed() in
hugepd processing
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 12:00:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > The other option is I can always add a comment above gup_huge_pd()
> > explaining this special bit, so that when someone is adding hugepd support
> > to file large folios we'll hopefully not forget it? But then that
> > generalization work will only happen when the code will be needed.
>
> If dropping the check is the right thing for now (and I think the ppc
> maintainers and willy as the large folio guy might have a more useful
> opinions than I do), leaving a comment in would be very useful.
It looks like ARM (in the person of Ryan) are going to add support for
something equivalent to hugepd. Insofar as I understand hugepd, anyway.
I've done my best to set up the generic code so that the arch code can
use whatever size TLB entries it supports. I haven't been looking to the
hugetlb code as a reference for it, since it can assume natural alignment
and generic THP/large folio must be able to handle arbitrary alignment.
If powerpc want to join in on the fun, they're more than welcome, but I
get the feeling that investment in Linux-on-PPC is somewhat smaller than
Linux-on-ARM these days. Even if we restrict that to the server space.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists