[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d2348cc3-c9c6-4df0-82b6-1105edd44a75@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 23:24:01 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, npache@...hat.com,
ryan.roberts@....com, dev.jain@....com, ziy@...dia.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
rppt@...nel.org, surenb@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: convert do_set_pmd() to take a folio
On 07.05.25 14:10, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 05:26:13PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> In do_set_pmd(), we always use the folio->page to build PMD mappings for
>> the entire folio. Since all callers of do_set_pmd() already hold a stable
>> folio, converting do_set_pmd() to take a folio is safe and more straightforward.
>
> What testing did you do of this?
>
>> -vm_fault_t do_set_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf, struct page *page)
>> +vm_fault_t do_set_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf, struct folio *folio)
>> {
>> - struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
>> struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
>> bool write = vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
>> unsigned long haddr = vmf->address & HPAGE_PMD_MASK;
>> pmd_t entry;
>> vm_fault_t ret = VM_FAULT_FALLBACK;
>> + struct page *page;
>
> Because I see nowhere in this patch that you initialise 'page'.
>
> And that's really the important part. You seem to be assuming that a
> folio will never be larger than PMD size, and I'm not comfortable with
> that assumption. It's a limitation I put in place a few years ago so we
> didn't have to find and fix all those assumptions immediately, but I
> imagine that some day we'll want to have larger folios.
>
> So unless you can derive _which_ page in the folio we want to map from
> the vmf, NACK this patch.
Agreed. Probably folio + idx is our best bet.
Which raises an interesting question: I assume in the future, when we
have a 4 MiB folio on x86-64 that is *misaligned* in VA space regarding
PMDs (e.g., aligned to 1 MiB but not 2 MiB), we could still allow to use
a PMD for the middle part.
So idx must not necessarily be aligned to PMDs in the future.
For now, we could sanity-check that idx is always 0.
But the rmap sanity checks in folio_add_file_rmap_pmd() will already
catch that for us.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists