[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZgyWUYVdUsAiXCC4@xz-m1.local>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:35:45 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@...ux.dev>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] mm/arch: Provide pud_pfn() fallback
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 07:53:20PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 06:43:56PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
>
> > I actually tested this without hitting the issue (even though I didn't
> > mention it in the cover letter..). I re-kicked the build test, it turns
> > out my "make alldefconfig" on loongarch will generate a config with both
> > HUGETLB=n && THP=n, while arch/loongarch/configs/loongson3_defconfig has
> > THP=y (which I assume was the one above build used). I didn't further
> > check how "make alldefconfig" generated the config; a bit surprising that
> > it didn't fetch from there.
>
> I suspect it is weird compiler variations.. Maybe something is not
> being inlined.
>
> > (and it also surprises me that this BUILD_BUG can trigger.. I used to try
> > triggering it elsewhere but failed..)
>
> As the pud_leaf() == FALSE should result in the BUILD_BUG never being
> called and the optimizer removing it.
Good point, for some reason loongarch defined pud_leaf() without defining
pud_pfn(), which does look strange.
#define pud_leaf(pud) ((pud_val(pud) & _PAGE_HUGE) != 0)
But I noticed at least MIPS also does it.. Logically I think one arch
should define either none of both.
>
> Perhaps the issue is that the pud_leaf() is too far from the pud_pfn?
My understanding is follow_pud_mask() should completely get optimized and
follow_huge_pud() will be dropped in the compiler output if pud_leaf()==false.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists