lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm/thp: Correctly differentiate between mapped THP and PMD migration entry
From
Date


On 10/09/2018 06:48 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 04:04:21PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 09:28:58AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> A normal mapped THP page at PMD level should be correctly differentiated
>>> from a PMD migration entry while walking the page table. A mapped THP would
>>> additionally check positive for pmd_present() along with pmd_trans_huge()
>>> as compared to a PMD migration entry. This just adds a new conditional test
>>> differentiating the two while walking the page table.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 616b8371539a6 ("mm: thp: enable thp migration in generic path")
>>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
>>> ---
>>> On X86, pmd_trans_huge() and is_pmd_migration_entry() are always mutually
>>> exclusive which makes the current conditional block work for both mapped
>>> and migration entries. This is not same with arm64 where pmd_trans_huge()
>>> returns positive for both mapped and migration entries. Could some one
>>> please explain why pmd_trans_huge() has to return false for migration
>>> entries which just install swap bits and its still a PMD ?
>>
>> I guess it's just a design choice. Any reason why arm64 cannot do the
>> same?
>
> Anshuman, would it work to:
>
> #define pmd_trans_huge(pmd) (pmd_present(pmd) && !(pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TABLE_BIT))
yeah this works but some how does not seem like the right thing to do
but can be the very last option.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-12 10:02    [W:0.094 / U:24.836 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site