[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [9]   [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
cc: Naoya Horiguchi (who proposed to use !_PAGE_PRESENT && !_PAGE_PSE for x86
PMD migration entry check)

On 8 Oct 2018, at 23:58, 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 <>
> ---
> 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()

!pmd_present() && pmd_trans_huge() is used to represent THPs under splitting,
since _PAGE_PRESENT is cleared during THP splitting but _PAGE_PSE is not.
See the comment in pmd_present() for x86, in arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h

> 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 ? Nonetheless
> pmd_present() seems to be a better check to distinguish between mapped
> and (non-mapped non-present) migration entries without any ambiguity.

If arm64 does it differently, I just wonder how THP splitting is handled
in arm64.

Best Regards
Yan Zi
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-09 16:00    [W:0.178 / U:12.120 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site