From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Gowans, James" <jgowans@amazon.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"christian.koenig@amd.com" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sch=F6nherr@kvack.org,
"?= Jan H." <jschoenh@amazon.de>,
"thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com"
<thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Split huge PUD on wp_huge_pud fallback
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 13:46:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220624134621.ddab5146060f71ed93019d00@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6f48d622eb8bce1ae5dd75327b0b73894a2ec407.camel@amazon.com>
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 05:24:03 +0000 "Gowans, James" <jgowans@amazon.com> wrote:
> Currently the implementation will split the PUD when a fallback is taken
> inside the create_huge_pud function. This isn't where it should be done:
> the splitting should be done in wp_huge_pud, just like it's done for
> PMDs. Reason being that if a callback is taken during create, there is
> no PUD yet so nothing to split, whereas if a fallback is taken when
> encountering a write protection fault there is something to split.
>
> It looks like this was the original intention with the commit where the
> splitting was introduced, but somehow it got moved to the wrong place
> between v1 and v2 of the patch series. Rebase mistake perhaps.
Thanks. What are the user-visible runtime effects of this change?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-24 20:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-23 5:24 Gowans, James
2022-06-23 10:24 ` Thomas Hellström
2022-06-24 20:46 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2022-08-02 14:59 ` David Hildenbrand
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=20220624134621.ddab5146060f71ed93019d00@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc==?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sch=F6nherr@kvack.org \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=jgowans@amazon.com \
--cc=jschoenh@amazon.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.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