linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Zach O'Keefe" <zokeefe@google.com>
To: Saurabh Singh Sengar <ssengar@microsoft.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	 "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
	 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH] mm/thp: fix "mm: thp: kill __transhuge_page_enabled()"
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 14:47:45 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAa6QmRrnRHEEQMMYe20GLXj7g+LVVHVRAKUdSLy=jUW=khb2A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PUZP153MB063529C4869A7A666C275B23BE15A@PUZP153MB0635.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

> We have a out of tree driver that maps huge pages through a file handle and
> relies on -> huge_fault. It used to work in 5.19 kernels but 6.1 changed this
> behaviour.
>
> I don’t think reverting the earlier behaviour of fault_path for huge pages should
> impact kernel negatively.
>
> Do you think we can restore this earlier behaviour of kernel to allow page fault
> for huge pages via ->huge_fault.

That seems reasonable to me. I think using the existence of a
->huge_fault() handler as a predicate to return "true" makes sense to
me. The "normal" flow for file-backed memory along fault path still
needs to return "false", so that we correctly fallback to ->fault()
handler. Unless there are objections, I can do that in a v2.


  reply	other threads:[~2023-08-16 21:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-12 21:00 Zach O'Keefe
2023-08-12 21:24 ` Zach O'Keefe
2023-08-13  6:19 ` [EXTERNAL] " Saurabh Singh Sengar
2023-08-14 18:47   ` Zach O'Keefe
2023-08-14 19:06     ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-08-15  0:04       ` Zach O'Keefe
2023-08-15  2:24         ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-08-16 16:52           ` Saurabh Singh Sengar
2023-08-16 21:47             ` Zach O'Keefe [this message]
2023-08-17 17:46               ` Yang Shi
2023-08-17 18:29                 ` Zach O'Keefe
2023-08-18 21:21                   ` Yang Shi
2023-08-21 15:08                     ` Zach O'Keefe
2023-08-21 22:59                       ` Yang Shi
2023-08-16 21:31           ` Zach O'Keefe
2023-08-17 12:18             ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-08-17 18:13               ` Zach O'Keefe
2023-08-17 19:01                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-08-17 21:12                   ` Zach O'Keefe
2023-08-16 16:49         ` Saurabh Singh Sengar

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='CAAa6QmRrnRHEEQMMYe20GLXj7g+LVVHVRAKUdSLy=jUW=khb2A@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=zokeefe@google.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
    --cc=ssengar@microsoft.com \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /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