On 2025/5/29 12:00, Nico Pache wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 12:55 AM Baolin Wang
<baolin.w...@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
On 2025/5/15 11:22, Nico Pache wrote:
For khugepaged to support different mTHP orders, we must generalize this
to check if the PMD is not shared by another VMA and the order is
enabled.
No functional change in this patch.
Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.w...@linux.alibaba.com>
Co-developed-by: Dev Jain <dev.j...@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.j...@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Nico Pache <npa...@redhat.com>
---
mm/khugepaged.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
index 5457571d505a..0c4d6a02d59c 100644
--- a/mm/khugepaged.c
+++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
@@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ static int khugepaged_find_target_node(struct
collapse_control *cc)
static int hugepage_vma_revalidate(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long
address,
bool expect_anon,
struct vm_area_struct **vmap,
- struct collapse_control *cc)
+ struct collapse_control *cc, int order)
{
struct vm_area_struct *vma;
unsigned long tva_flags = cc->is_khugepaged ? TVA_ENFORCE_SYSFS : 0;
@@ -934,7 +934,7 @@ static int hugepage_vma_revalidate(struct mm_struct *mm,
unsigned long address,
if (!thp_vma_suitable_order(vma, address, PMD_ORDER))
Sorry, I missed this before. Should we also change 'PMD_ORDER' to
'order' for the thp_vma_suitable_order()?
This was changed since the last version (v5) due to an email from Hugh.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7a81339c-f9e5-a718-fa7f-6e3fb134d...@google.com/
As I noted in my reply to him, although he was not able to reproduce
an issue due to this, we always need to revalidate the PMD order to
verify the PMD range is not shared by another VMA.
OK. I see. Better to add some comments like Hugh did to make it clear.
