Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: simplify hugetlb handling in follow_page_mask

[Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>]

On 9/1/2022 8:00 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 08/31/22 09:07, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/31/2022 2:39 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> On 08/30/22 09:44, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>> On 08/30/22 09:06, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/30/2022 7:40 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>>>> During discussions of this series [1], it was suggested that hugetlb
>>>>>> handling code in follow_page_mask could be simplified.  At the beginning
>>>>>> of follow_page_mask, there currently is a call to follow_huge_addr which
>>>>>> 'may' handle hugetlb pages.  ia64 is the only architecture which provides
>>>>>> a follow_huge_addr routine that does not return error.  Instead, at each
>>>>>> level of the page table a check is made for a hugetlb entry.  If a hugetlb
>>>>>> entry is found, a call to a routine associated with that entry is made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently, there are two checks for hugetlb entries at each page table
>>>>>> level.  The first check is of the form:
>>>>>> 	if (p?d_huge())
>>>>>> 		page = follow_huge_p?d();
>>>>>> the second check is of the form:
>>>>>> 	if (is_hugepd())
>>>>>> 		page = follow_huge_pd().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can replace these checks, as well as the special handling routines
>>>>>> such as follow_huge_p?d() and follow_huge_pd() with a single routine to
>>>>>> handle hugetlb vmas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A new routine hugetlb_follow_page_mask is called for hugetlb vmas at the
>>>>>> beginning of follow_page_mask.  hugetlb_follow_page_mask will use the
>>>>>> existing routine huge_pte_offset to walk page tables looking for hugetlb
>>>>>> entries.  huge_pte_offset can be overwritten by architectures, and already
>>>>>> handles special cases such as hugepd entries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you also mention that this patch will fix the lock issue for
>>>>> CONT-PTE/PMD hugetlb by changing to use huge_pte_lock()? which will help
>>>>> people to understand the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Will update message in v2.  Thanks for taking a look!
>>>>
>>>
>>> One additional thought, we 'may' need a separate patch to fix the locking
>>> issues that can be easily backported.  Not sure this 'simplification' is
>>> a good backport candidate.
>>
>> Yes, that was my thought before, but David did not like adding more
>> make-legacy-cruft-happy code.
>>
>> So how about creating a series that contains 3 patches: picking up patch 1
>> and patch 3 of my previous series [1], and your current patch? That means
>> patch 1 and patch 2 in this series can fix the lock issue explicitly and be
>> suitable to backport, meanwhile patch 3 (which is your current patch) will
>> cleanup the legacy code.
>>
> 
> When I looked at patch 3, I was thinking the update follow_huge_pmd routine
> would work for the PTE level with a few more modifications.  Perhaps, this is
> too ugly but it is a smaller set of changes for backport.
> 
> Of course, this would be followed up with the simplification patch which
> removes all this code.

Yes, looks more simple. I can send you a formal patch with your 
suggestion, which can be added into your cleanup series. Thanks.