From: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
To: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
mark.rutland@arm.com, David Woods <dwoods@mellanox.com>,
steve.capper@arm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/9] arm64: hugetlb: Handle swap entries in huge_pte_offset() for contiguous hugepages
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:21:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <010915f9-2322-1add-bf9a-dc0e830d6548@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87inhfmv9f.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
On 22/08/17 17:18, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com> writes:
>
>> On 22/08/17 15:41, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>>> Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi Punit,
>>>>
>>>> On 22/08/17 11:42, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>>>>> huge_pte_offset() was updated to correctly handle swap entries for
>>>>> hugepages. With the addition of the size parameter, it is now possible
>>>>> to disambiguate whether the request is for a regular hugepage or a
>>>>> contiguous hugepage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fix huge_pte_offset() for contiguous hugepages by using the size to find
>>>>> the correct page table entry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
>>>>> Cc: David Woods <dwoods@mellanox.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
>>>>> index 594232598cac..b95e24dc3477 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
>>>>> @@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ pte_t *huge_pte_offset(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>>> pgd_t *pgd;
>>>>> pud_t *pud;
>>>>> pmd_t *pmd;
>>>>> + pte_t *pte;
>>>>> pgd = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
>>>>> pr_debug("%s: addr:0x%lx pgd:%p\n", __func__, addr, pgd);
>>>>> @@ -221,19 +222,29 @@ pte_t *huge_pte_offset(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>>> return NULL;
>>>>> pud = pud_offset(pgd, addr);
>>>>> - if (pud_none(*pud))
>>>>> + if (sz != PUD_SIZE && pud_none(*pud))
>>>>> return NULL;
>>>>> - /* swap or huge page */
>>>>> - if (!pud_present(*pud) || pud_huge(*pud))
>>>>> + /* hugepage or swap? */
>>>>> + if (pud_huge(*pud) || !pud_present(*pud))
>>>>> return (pte_t *)pud;
>>>>> /* table; check the next level */
>>>>> + if (sz == CONT_PMD_SIZE)
>>>>> + addr &= CONT_PMD_MASK;
>>>>> +
>>>>> pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
>>>>> - if (pmd_none(*pmd))
>>>>> + if (!(sz == PMD_SIZE || sz == CONT_PMD_SIZE) &&
>>>>> + pmd_none(*pmd))
>>>>> return NULL;
>>>>> - if (!pmd_present(*pmd) || pmd_huge(*pmd))
>>>>> + if (pmd_huge(*pmd) || !pmd_present(*pmd))
>>>>> return (pte_t *)pmd;
>>>>> + if (sz == CONT_PTE_SIZE) {
>>>>> + pte = pte_offset_kernel(
>>>>> + pmd, (addr & CONT_PTE_MASK));
>>>>> + return pte;
>>>>
>>>> Nit: Looks like this is the only place the new variable pte is
>>>> used. Since we don't need to test its value, why not just write:
>>>> return pte_offset_kernel(pmd, (addr & CONT_PTE_MASK));
>>>>
>>>> and get rid of the pte variable?
>>>
>>> There is no benefit to getting rid of "pte" other than conciseness of
>>> the patch. Having an explicit identifier helps highlight the level of
>>> the page tables we are accessing.
>>>
>>> And we always want to prioritise readability vs conciseness of the
>>> patch, no?
>>>
>>
>> I agree, but I feel here it is more redundancy than increase of
>> readability, because we know pte_offset_kernel returns the address of
>> a pte, no? (otherwise I feel a comment would fit better than a
>> variable).
>>
>> Also, we end up with a variable declared in one scope where it is not
>> used, and it is referenced in a single inner scope, which seems a bit
>> odd to me. Might make the reader pointlessly wonder where else it is
>> used.
>
> I would've thought looking at the function makes the variable usage
> quite clear. But I think at this stage we are disagreeing over personal
> preferences rather than any real issues (imho) with the code.
>
> If you feel strongly about this, I can update the code if there is a
> need for another version. But I am reluctant to send a new version just
> for this change.
>
Fair enough, it was just nitpicking.
Rest of the patchset looks good from my understanding.
Cheers,
--
Julien Thierry
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-22 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-22 10:42 [PATCH v7 0/9] arm64: Enable contiguous pte hugepage support Punit Agrawal
2017-08-22 10:42 ` [PATCH v7 1/9] arm64: hugetlb: set_huge_pte_at Add WARN_ON on !pte_present Punit Agrawal
2017-08-22 10:42 ` [PATCH v7 2/9] arm64: hugetlb: Introduce pte_pgprot helper Punit Agrawal
2017-08-22 10:42 ` [PATCH v7 3/9] arm64: hugetlb: Spring clean huge pte accessors Punit Agrawal
2017-08-22 10:42 ` [PATCH v7 4/9] arm64: hugetlb: Add break-before-make logic for contiguous entries Punit Agrawal
2017-08-22 10:42 ` [PATCH v7 5/9] arm64: hugetlb: Handle swap entries in huge_pte_offset() for contiguous hugepages Punit Agrawal
2017-08-22 14:14 ` Julien Thierry
2017-08-22 14:41 ` Punit Agrawal
2017-08-22 15:01 ` Julien Thierry
2017-08-22 16:18 ` Punit Agrawal
2017-08-22 16:21 ` Julien Thierry [this message]
2017-08-22 16:35 ` Catalin Marinas
2017-08-22 17:14 ` Punit Agrawal
2017-08-22 10:42 ` [PATCH v7 6/9] arm64: hugetlb: Override huge_pte_clear() to support " Punit Agrawal
2017-08-22 10:42 ` [PATCH v7 7/9] arm64: hugetlb: Override set_huge_swap_pte_at() " Punit Agrawal
2017-08-22 10:42 ` [PATCH v7 8/9] arm64: Re-enable support for " Punit Agrawal
2017-08-22 10:42 ` [PATCH v7 9/9] arm64: hugetlb: Cleanup setup_hugepagesz Punit Agrawal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=010915f9-2322-1add-bf9a-dc0e830d6548@arm.com \
--to=julien.thierry@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dwoods@mellanox.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=punit.agrawal@arm.com \
--cc=steve.capper@arm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox