[PATCH v4 05/13] mm/arch: Provide pud_pfn() fallback

[Peter Xu]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 09:08:41AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 07:35:45PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 07:53:20PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 06:43:56PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I actually tested this without hitting the issue (even though I didn't
> > > > mention it in the cover letter..).  I re-kicked the build test, it turns
> > > > out my "make alldefconfig" on loongarch will generate a config with both
> > > > HUGETLB=n && THP=n, while arch/loongarch/configs/loongson3_defconfig has
> > > > THP=y (which I assume was the one above build used).  I didn't further
> > > > check how "make alldefconfig" generated the config; a bit surprising that
> > > > it didn't fetch from there.
> > > 
> > > I suspect it is weird compiler variations.. Maybe something is not
> > > being inlined.
> > > 
> > > > (and it also surprises me that this BUILD_BUG can trigger.. I used to try
> > > >  triggering it elsewhere but failed..)
> > > 
> > > As the pud_leaf() == FALSE should result in the BUILD_BUG never being
> > > called and the optimizer removing it.
> > 
> > Good point, for some reason loongarch defined pud_leaf() without defining
> > pud_pfn(), which does look strange.
> > 
> > #define pud_leaf(pud)		((pud_val(pud) & _PAGE_HUGE) != 0)
> > 
> > But I noticed at least MIPS also does it..  Logically I think one arch
> > should define either none of both.
> 
> Wow, this is definately an arch issue. You can't define pud_leaf() and
> not have a pud_pfn(). It makes no sense at all..
> 
> I'd say the BUILD_BUG has done it's job and found an issue, fix it by
> not defining pud_leaf? I don't see any calls to pud_leaf in loongarch
> at least

Yes, that sounds better too to me, however it means we may also risk other
archs that can fail another defconfig build.. and I worry I bring trouble
to multiple such cases.  Fundamentally it's indeed my patch that broke
those builds, so I still sent the change and leave that for arch developers
to decide the best for the archs.

I think if wanted, we can add that BUILD_BUG() back when we're sure no arch
will break with it.  So such changes from arch can still be proposed
alongside of removal of BUILD_BUG() (and I'd guess some other arch will
start to notice such build issue soon if existed.. so it still more or less
has similar effect of a reminder..).

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu