* Naoya Horiguchi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:05:31AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > On 03/29/2016 01:35 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Mike Kravetz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> When creating a hugetlb mapping, attempt PUD_SIZE alignment if the
> > >> following conditions are met:
> > >> - Address passed to mmap or shmat is NULL
> > >> - The mapping is flaged as shared
> > >> - The mapping is at least PUD_SIZE in length
> > >> If a PUD_SIZE aligned mapping can not be created, then fall back to a
> > >> huge page size mapping.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <[email protected]>
> > >> ---
> > >> arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 64
> > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > >> 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > >> index 42982b2..4f53af5 100644
> > >> --- a/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > >> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > >> @@ -78,14 +78,39 @@ static unsigned long
> > >> hugetlb_get_unmapped_area_bottomup(struct file *file,
> > >> {
> > >> struct hstate *h = hstate_file(file);
> > >> struct vm_unmapped_area_info info;
> > >> + bool pud_size_align = false;
> > >> + unsigned long ret_addr;
> > >> +
> > >> + /*
> > >> + * If PMD sharing is enabled, align to PUD_SIZE to facilitate
> > >> + * sharing. Only attempt alignment if no address was passed in,
> > >> + * flags indicate sharing and size is big enough.
> > >> + */
> > >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE) &&
> > >> + !addr && flags & MAP_SHARED && len >= PUD_SIZE)
> > >> + pud_size_align = true;
> > >>
> > >> info.flags = 0;
> > >> info.length = len;
> > >> info.low_limit = current->mm->mmap_legacy_base;
> > >> info.high_limit = TASK_SIZE;
> > >> - info.align_mask = PAGE_MASK & ~huge_page_mask(h);
> > >> + if (pud_size_align)
> > >> + info.align_mask = PAGE_MASK & (PUD_SIZE - 1);
> > >> + else
> > >> + info.align_mask = PAGE_MASK & ~huge_page_mask(h);
> > >> info.align_offset = 0;
> > >> - return vm_unmapped_area(&info);
> > >> + ret_addr = vm_unmapped_area(&info);
> > >> +
> > >> + /*
> > >> + * If failed with PUD_SIZE alignment, try again with huge page
> > >> + * size alignment.
> > >> + */
> > >> + if ((ret_addr & ~PAGE_MASK) && pud_size_align) {
> > >> + info.align_mask = PAGE_MASK & ~huge_page_mask(h);
> > >> + ret_addr = vm_unmapped_area(&info);
> > >> + }
> > >
> > > So AFAICS 'ret_addr' is either page aligned, or is an error code.
> > > Wouldn't it be a
> > > lot easier to read to say:
> > >
> > > if ((long)ret_addr > 0 && pud_size_align) {
> > > info.align_mask = PAGE_MASK & ~huge_page_mask(h);
> > > ret_addr = vm_unmapped_area(&info);
> > > }
> > >
> > > return ret_addr;
> > >
> > > to make it clear that it's about error handling, not some alignment
> > > requirement/restriction?
> >
> > Yes, I agree that is easier to read. However, it assumes that process
> > virtual addresses can never evaluate to a negative long value. This may
> > be the case for x86_64 today. But, there are other architectures where
> > this is not the case. I know this is x86 specific code, but might it be
> > possible that x86 virtual addresses could be negative longs in the future?
> >
> > It appears that all callers of vm_unmapped_area() are using the page aligned
> > check to determine error. I would prefer to do the same, and can add
> > comments to make that more clear.
>
> IS_ERR_VALUE() might be helpful?
Yes, please use IS_ERR_VALUE(), using PAGE_MASK is way too obfuscated.
Thanks,
Ingo
