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 E0BC9C433F5 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 03:06:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2034A6B0071; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:06:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 1B1BF6B0073; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:06:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 054F66B0074; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:06:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.27]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1646B0071 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin26.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7B8260ED for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 03:06:04 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79379397048.26.BCA2F0B Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) by imf11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1577440021 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 03:06:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kwepemi500012.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.54]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KkMpx4VcFzfYpj; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 11:05:13 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemm600017.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.234) by kwepemi500012.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 11:05:59 +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; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 11:05:58 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 11:05:57 +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: Pasha Tatashin CC: Anshuman Khandual , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , LKML , linux-mm , Linux ARM , , 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.179.234] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To kwepemm600017.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.234) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1577440021 X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf11.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf11.hostedemail.com: domain of tongtiangen@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.187 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=tongtiangen@huawei.com X-Stat-Signature: uca8yyotpmstxszdarbawdwwr6ydxr4e X-HE-Tag: 1650510361-257175 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 2022/4/21 0:44, Pasha Tatashin 写道: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 2:45 AM Tong Tiangen wrote: >> >> >> >> 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? > > Hi Tong, > > Yes, it makes sense to use PMD_SIZE/PUD_SIZE instead of > PUD_PAGE_SIZE/PMD_PAGE_SIZE in page_table_check to be inline with the > rest of the mm/ > > Pasha > Hi Pasha and Anshuman: OK, Functional correctness is not affected here, i plan to optimize this point after this patchset is merged. Tong. >> >> Thanks, >> Tong. > .