On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 04:59:13PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote: > > > > On Apr 5, 2024, at 03:58, Vishal Moola wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 5:49 AM Oscar Salvador wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 01:26:50PM -0700, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote: > >>> hugetlb_no_page() can use the struct vm_fault passed in from > >>> hugetlb_fault(). This alleviates the stack by consolidating 7 > >>> variables into a single struct. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Vishal Moola (Oracle) > >>> --- > >>> mm/hugetlb.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- > >>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c > >>> index 360b82374a89..aca2f11b4138 100644 > >>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c > >>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c > >>> @@ -6189,9 +6189,7 @@ static bool hugetlb_pte_stable(struct hstate *h, struct mm_struct *mm, > >>> > >>> static vm_fault_t hugetlb_no_page(struct mm_struct *mm, > >>> struct vm_area_struct *vma, > >>> - struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t idx, > >>> - unsigned long address, pte_t *ptep, > >>> - pte_t old_pte, unsigned int flags, > >>> + struct address_space *mapping, > >> > >> AFAICS all this can be self-contained in vm_fault struct. > >> vmf->vma->mm and vmf->vma. > >> I mean, if we want to convert this interface, why not going all the way? > >> > >> Looks a bit odd some fields yes while some others remain. > >> > >> Or am I missing something? > > > > Mainly just minimizing code churn, we would either unnecessarily > > change multiple lines using vma or have to declare the variables > > again anyways (or have extra churn I didn't like). > > I don't think adding some variables is a problem. I suppose the compiler > could do some optimization for us. So I think it is better to pass > only one argument vmf to hugetlb_no_page(). Otherwise, LGTM. Alright we can get rid of the vm_area_struct and mm_struct arguments as well. Andrew, could you please fold the attached patch into this one?