From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B1FC433FE for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:44:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 42DE16B0073; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 02:44:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3B7A86B0075; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 02:44:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 257A26B007B; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 02:44:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.a.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.24]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136BD6B0073 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 02:44:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A36254A8 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:44:17 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79376318154.19.6084B40 Received: from szxga08-in.huawei.com (szxga08-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.255]) by imf15.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39EF2A0010 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kwepemi500007.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.56]) by szxga08-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KjrjC5Hypz1J9qf; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:43:27 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemm600017.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.234) by kwepemi500007.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.207) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:44:12 +0800 Received: from [10.174.179.234] (10.174.179.234) by kwepemm600017.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.234) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:44:10 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:44:10 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4 1/4] mm: page_table_check: move pxx_user_accessible_page into x86 To: Anshuman Khandual , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , , "H. Peter Anvin" , Pasha Tatashin , Andrew Morton , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou CC: , , , , Kefeng Wang , Guohanjun References: <20220418034444.520928-1-tongtiangen@huawei.com> <20220418034444.520928-2-tongtiangen@huawei.com> <1671baf7-046e-7c52-183f-fd654125fd67@arm.com> From: Tong Tiangen In-Reply-To: <1671baf7-046e-7c52-183f-fd654125fd67@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.179.234] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.181) To kwepemm600017.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.234) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Authentication-Results: imf15.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf15.hostedemail.com: domain of tongtiangen@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.255 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=tongtiangen@huawei.com X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 39EF2A0010 X-Stat-Signature: 8ny9cz1csjsi7oc8bys7somr6rwru8kb X-HE-Tag: 1650437054-571227 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: 在 2022/4/19 17:29, Anshuman Khandual 写道: > > > On 4/18/22 09:14, Tong Tiangen wrote: >> --- a/mm/page_table_check.c >> +++ b/mm/page_table_check.c >> @@ -10,6 +10,14 @@ >> #undef pr_fmt >> #define pr_fmt(fmt) "page_table_check: " fmt >> >> +#ifndef PMD_PAGE_SIZE >> +#define PMD_PAGE_SIZE PMD_SIZE >> +#endif >> + >> +#ifndef PUD_PAGE_SIZE >> +#define PUD_PAGE_SIZE PUD_SIZE >> +#endif > > Why cannot PMD_SIZE/PUD_SIZE be used on every platform instead ? What is the > need for using PUD_PAGE_SIZE/PMD_PAGE_SIZE ? Are they different on x86 ? > . Hi, Pasha： I checked the definitions of PMD_SIZE/PUD_SIZE and PUD_PAGE_SIZE/PMD_PAGE_SIZE in x86 architecture and their use outside the architecture(eg: in mm/, all used PMD_SIZE/PUD_SIZE), Would it be better to use a unified PMD_SIZE/PUD_SIZE here? Thanks, Tong.