[PATCH 1/2] arm64/mm: Change THP helpers to comply with generic MM semantics
anshuman.khandual at arm.com
Tue Sep 8 06:18:08 EDT 2020
On 09/03/2020 10:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 02:49:43PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> pmd_present() and pmd_trans_huge() are expected to behave in the following
>> manner during various phases of a given PMD. It is derived from a previous
>> detailed discussion on this topic  and present THP documentation .
>> - Returns true if pmd refers to system RAM with a valid pmd_page(pmd)
>> - Returns false if pmd does not refer to system RAM - Invalid pmd_page(pmd)
> The second bullet doesn't make much sense. If you have a pmd mapping of
> some I/O memory, pmd_present() still returns true (as does
Derived this from an earlier discussion (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/17/231)
but current representation here might not be accurate.
Would this be any better ?
- Returns true if pmd refers to system RAM with a valid pmd_page(pmd)
- Returns false if pmd refers to a migration or swap entry
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h
>> index 4d867c6446c4..28792fdd9627 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h
>> @@ -19,6 +19,13 @@
>> #define PTE_DEVMAP (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 57)
>> #define PTE_PROT_NONE (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 58) /* only when !PTE_VALID */
>> + * This help indicate that the entry is present i.e pmd_page()
> Nit: add another . after i.e
>> + * still points to a valid huge page in memory even if the pmd
>> + * has been invalidated.
>> + */
>> +#define PMD_PRESENT_INVALID (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 59) /* only when !PMD_SECT_VALID */
>> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>> #include <asm/cpufeature.h>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index d5d3fbe73953..7aa69cace784 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -145,6 +145,18 @@ static inline pte_t set_pte_bit(pte_t pte, pgprot_t prot)
>> return pte;
>> +static inline pmd_t clr_pmd_bit(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t prot)
>> + pmd_val(pmd) &= ~pgprot_val(prot);
>> + return pmd;
> Could you use clear_pmd_bit (instead of clr) for consistency with
Sure, will do.
> It would be good if the mm folk can do a sanity check on the assumptions
> about pmd_present/pmdp_invalidate/pmd_trans_huge.
> The patch looks fine to me otherwise, feel free to add:
> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel