On 08/07, Song Liu wrote:
>
> @@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct vm_area_struct
> *vma,
> spin_unlock(ptl);
> return follow_page_pte(vma, address, pmd, flags, &ctx->pgmap);
> }
> - if (flags & FOLL_SPLIT) {
> + if (flags & (FOLL_SPLIT | FOLL_SPLIT_PMD)) {
> int ret;
> page = pmd_page(*pmd);
> if (is_huge_zero_page(page)) {
> @@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct vm_area_struct
> *vma,
> split_huge_pmd(vma, pmd, address);
> if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
> ret = -EBUSY;
> - } else {
> + } else if (flags & FOLL_SPLIT) {
> if (unlikely(!try_get_page(page))) {
> spin_unlock(ptl);
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> @@ -420,6 +420,10 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct
> vm_area_struct *vma,
> put_page(page);
> if (pmd_none(*pmd))
> return no_page_table(vma, flags);
> + } else { /* flags & FOLL_SPLIT_PMD */
> + spin_unlock(ptl);
> + split_huge_pmd(vma, pmd, address);
> + ret = pte_alloc(mm, pmd) ? -ENOMEM : 0;
> }
Can't resist, let me repeat that I do not like this patch because imo
it complicates this code for no reason.
But I can't insist and of course I could miss something.
Oleg.
