Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: convert do_set_pmd() to take a folio

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 08.05.25 01:46, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 7 May 2025, at 17:24, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
>> On 07.05.25 14:10, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 05:26:13PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>> In do_set_pmd(), we always use the folio->page to build PMD mappings for
>>>> the entire folio. Since all callers of do_set_pmd() already hold a stable
>>>> folio, converting do_set_pmd() to take a folio is safe and more straightforward.
>>>
>>> What testing did you do of this?
>>>
>>>> -vm_fault_t do_set_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf, struct page *page)
>>>> +vm_fault_t do_set_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf, struct folio *folio)
>>>>    {
>>>> -	struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
>>>>    	struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
>>>>    	bool write = vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
>>>>    	unsigned long haddr = vmf->address & HPAGE_PMD_MASK;
>>>>    	pmd_t entry;
>>>>    	vm_fault_t ret = VM_FAULT_FALLBACK;
>>>> +	struct page *page;
>>>
>>> Because I see nowhere in this patch that you initialise 'page'.
>>>
>>> And that's really the important part.  You seem to be assuming that a
>>> folio will never be larger than PMD size, and I'm not comfortable with
>>> that assumption.  It's a limitation I put in place a few years ago so we
>>> didn't have to find and fix all those assumptions immediately, but I
>>> imagine that some day we'll want to have larger folios.
>>>
>>> So unless you can derive _which_ page in the folio we want to map from
>>> the vmf, NACK this patch.
>>
>> Agreed. Probably folio + idx is our best bet.
>>
>> Which raises an interesting question: I assume in the future, when we have a 4 MiB folio on x86-64 that is *misaligned* in VA space regarding PMDs (e.g., aligned to 1 MiB but not 2 MiB), we could still allow to use a PMD for the middle part.
> 
> It might not be possible if the folio comes from buddy allocator due to how
> buddy allocator merges a PFN with its buddy (see __find_buddy_pfn() in mm/internal.h).
> A 4MB folio will always be two 2MB-aligned parts. In addition, VA and PA need
> to have the same lower 9+12 bits for a PMD mapping. So PMD mappings for
> a 4MB folio would always be two PMDs. Let me know if I miss anything.

PA is clear. But is mis-alignment in VA space impossible on all 
architectures? I certainly remember it being impossible on x86-64 and 
s390x (remaining PMD entry bits used for something else).

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb