Le 22/11/2023 à 16:22, Peter Xu a écrit :
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 12:00:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
>>>> What prevents us from ever using hugepd with file mappings?  I think
>>>> it would naturally fit in with how large folios for the pagecache work.
>>>> So keeping this check and generalizing it seems like the better idea to
>>>> me.
>>> But then it means we're still keeping that dead code for fast-gup even if
>>> we know that fact..  Or do we have a plan to add that support very soon, so
>>> this code will be destined to add back?
>> The question wasn't mean retorical - we support arbitrary power of two
>> sized folios for the pagepage, what prevents us from using hugepd with
>> them right now?
> Ah, didn't catch that point previously.  Hugepd is just not used outside
> hugetlb right now, afaiu.
> For example, __hugepte_alloc() (and that's the only one calls
> hugepd_populate()) should be the function to allocate a hugepd (ppc only),
> and it's only called in huge_pte_alloc(), which is part of the current
> arch-specific hugetlb api.
> And generic mm paths don't normally have hugepd handling, afaics.  For
> example, page_vma_mapped_walk() doesn't handle hugepd at all unless in
> hugetlb specific path.
> There're actually (only) two generic mm paths that can handle hugepd,
> namely:
>    - fast-gup
>    - walk_page_*() apis (aka, __walk_page_range())
> For fast-gup I think the hugepd code is in use, however for walk_page_*
> apis hugepd code shouldn't be reached iiuc as we have the hugetlb specific
> handling (walk_hugetlb_range()), so anything within walk_pgd_range() to hit
> a hugepd can be dead code to me (but note that this "dead code" is good
> stuff to me, if one would like to merge hugetlb instead into generic mm).

Not sure what you mean here. What do you mean by "dead code" ?
A hugepage directory can be plugged at any page level, from PGD to PMD.
So the following bit in walk_pgd_range() is valid and not dead:

                if (is_hugepd(__hugepd(pgd_val(*pgd))))
                        err = walk_hugepd_range((hugepd_t *)pgd, addr, next, 

> This series tries to add slow gup into that list too, so the 3rd one to
> support it.  I plan to look more into this area (e.g., __walk_page_range()
> can be another good candidate soon).  I'm not sure whether we should teach
> the whole mm to understand hugepd yet, but slow gup and __walk_page_range()
> does look like good candidates to already remove the hugetlb specific code
> paths - slow-gup has average ~add/~del LOCs (which this series does), and
> __walk_page_range() can remove some code logically, no harm I yet see.
> Indeed above are based on only my code observations, so I'll be more than
> happy to be corrected otherwise, as early as possible.
>>> The other option is I can always add a comment above gup_huge_pd()
>>> explaining this special bit, so that when someone is adding hugepd support
>>> to file large folios we'll hopefully not forget it?  But then that
>>> generalization work will only happen when the code will be needed.
>> If dropping the check is the right thing for now (and I think the ppc
>> maintainers and willy as the large folio guy might have a more useful
>> opinions than I do), leaving a comment in would be very useful.
> Willy is in the loop, and I just notice I didn't really copy ppc list, even
> I planned to..  I am adding the list (linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org) into
> this reply.  I'll remember to do so as long as there's a new version.
> The other reason I feel like hugepd may or may not be further developed for
> new features like large folio is that I saw Power9 started to shift to
> radix pgtables, and afaics hugepd is only supported in hash tables
> (hugepd_ok()).  But again, I confess I know nothing about Power at all.
> Thanks,

Reply via email to