Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] mm/gup: Unify hugetlb, part 2

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 05:42:44PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> In short, hugetlb mappings shouldn't be special comparing to other huge pXd
> and large folio (cont-pXd) mappings for most of the walkers in my mind, if
> not all.  I need to look at all the walkers and there can be some tricky
> ones, but I believe that applies in general.  It's actually similar to what
> I did with slow gup here.

I think that is the big question, I also haven't done the research to
know the answer.

At this point focusing on moving what is reasonable to the pXX_* API
makes sense to me. Then reviewing what remains and making some
decision.

> Like this series, for cont-pXd we'll need multiple walks comparing to
> before (when with hugetlb_entry()), but for that part I'll provide some
> performance tests too, and we also have a fallback plan, which is to detect
> cont-pXd existance, which will also work for large folios.

I think we can optimize this pretty easy.
 
> > I think if you do the easy places for pXX conversion you will have a
> > good idea about what is needed for the hard places.
> 
> Here IMHO we don't need to understand "what is the size of this hugetlb
> vma"

Yeh, I never really understood why hugetlb was linked to the VMA.. The
page table is self describing, obviously.

> or "which level of pgtable does this hugetlb vma pages locate",

Ditto

> because we may not need that, e.g., when we only want to collect some smaps
> statistics.  "whether it's hugetlb" may matter, though. E.g. in the mm
> walker we see a huge pmd, it can be a thp, it can be a hugetlb (when
> hugetlb_entry removed), we may need extra check later to put things into
> the right bucket, but for the walker itself it doesn't necessarily need
> hugetlb_entry().

Right, places may still need to know it is part of a huge VMA because we
have special stuff linked to that.

> > But then again we come back to power and its big list of page sizes
> > and variety :( Looks like some there have huge sizes at the pgd level
> > at least.
> 
> Yeah this is something I want to be super clear, because I may miss
> something: we don't have real pgd pages, right?  Powerpc doesn't even
> define p4d_leaf(), AFAICT.

AFAICT it is because it hides it all in hugepd.

If the goal is to purge hugepd then some of the options might turn out
to convert hugepd into huge p4d/pgd, as I understand it. It would be
nice to have certainty on this at least.

We have effectively three APIs to parse a single page table and
currently none of the APIs can return 100% of the data for power.

Jason