[PATCH v7 5/9] arm64: hugetlb: Handle swap entries in huge_pte_offset() for contiguous hugepages

[Julien Thierry]

On 22/08/17 15:41, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> Julien Thierry <julien.thierry at arm.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi Punit,
>>
>> On 22/08/17 11:42, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>>> huge_pte_offset() was updated to correctly handle swap entries for
>>> hugepages. With the addition of the size parameter, it is now possible
>>> to disambiguate whether the request is for a regular hugepage or a
>>> contiguous hugepage.
>>>
>>> Fix huge_pte_offset() for contiguous hugepages by using the size to find
>>> the correct page table entry.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal at arm.com>
>>> Cc: David Woods <dwoods at mellanox.com>
>>> ---
>>>    arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
>>>    1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
>>> index 594232598cac..b95e24dc3477 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
>>> @@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ pte_t *huge_pte_offset(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>    	pgd_t *pgd;
>>>    	pud_t *pud;
>>>    	pmd_t *pmd;
>>> +	pte_t *pte;
>>>      	pgd = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
>>>    	pr_debug("%s: addr:0x%lx pgd:%p\n", __func__, addr, pgd);
>>> @@ -221,19 +222,29 @@ pte_t *huge_pte_offset(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>    		return NULL;
>>>      	pud = pud_offset(pgd, addr);
>>> -	if (pud_none(*pud))
>>> +	if (sz != PUD_SIZE && pud_none(*pud))
>>>    		return NULL;
>>> -	/* swap or huge page */
>>> -	if (!pud_present(*pud) || pud_huge(*pud))
>>> +	/* hugepage or swap? */
>>> +	if (pud_huge(*pud) || !pud_present(*pud))
>>>    		return (pte_t *)pud;
>>>    	/* table; check the next level */
>>>    +	if (sz == CONT_PMD_SIZE)
>>> +		addr &= CONT_PMD_MASK;
>>> +
>>>    	pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
>>> -	if (pmd_none(*pmd))
>>> +	if (!(sz == PMD_SIZE || sz == CONT_PMD_SIZE) &&
>>> +	    pmd_none(*pmd))
>>>    		return NULL;
>>> -	if (!pmd_present(*pmd) || pmd_huge(*pmd))
>>> +	if (pmd_huge(*pmd) || !pmd_present(*pmd))
>>>    		return (pte_t *)pmd;
>>>    +	if (sz == CONT_PTE_SIZE) {
>>> +		pte = pte_offset_kernel(
>>> +			pmd, (addr & CONT_PTE_MASK));
>>> +		return pte;
>>
>> Nit: Looks like this is the only place the new variable pte is
>> used. Since we don't need to test its value, why not just write:
>> 	return pte_offset_kernel(pmd, (addr & CONT_PTE_MASK));
>>
>> and get rid of the pte variable?
> 
> There is no benefit to getting rid of "pte" other than conciseness of
> the patch. Having an explicit identifier helps highlight the level of
> the page tables we are accessing.
> 
> And we always want to prioritise readability vs conciseness of the
> patch, no?
> 

I agree, but I feel here it is more redundancy than increase of 
readability, because we know pte_offset_kernel returns the address of a 
pte, no? (otherwise I feel a comment would fit better than a variable).

Also, we end up with a variable declared in one scope where it is not 
used, and it is referenced in a single inner scope, which seems a bit 
odd to me. Might make the reader pointlessly wonder where else it is used.

-- 
Julien Thierry