[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 3/9] mm: pagewalk: Don't split transhuge pmds when a pmd_entry is present
On 10/10/19 12:30 AM, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
> On 10/9/19 10:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:06 PM Thomas Hellström (VMware)
>> <> wrote:
>>> On 10/9/19 9:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>> Don't you get it? There *is* no PTE level if you didn't split.
>>> Hmm, This paragraph makes me think we have very different
>>> perceptions about what I'm trying to achieve.
>> It's not about what you're trying to achieve.
>> It's about the actual code.
>> You cannot do that
>>> - split_huge_pmd(walk->vma, pmd, addr);
>>> +               if (!ops->pmd_entry)
>>> +                       split_huge_pmd(walk->vma, pmd, addr);
>> it's insane.
>> You *have* to call split_huge_pmd() if you're doing to call the
>> pte_entry() function.
>> I don't understand why you are arguing. This is not about "feelings"
>> and "intentions" or about "trying to achieve".
>> This is about cold hard "you can't do that", and this is now the third
>> time I tell you _why_ you can't do that: you can't walk the last level
>> if you don't _have_ a last level. You have to split the pmd to do so.
> It's not so much arguing but rather trying to understand your concerns
> and your perception of what the final code should look like.
>> End of story.
> So is it that you want pte_entry() to be strictly called for *each*
> virtual address, even if we have a pmd_entry()?
> In that case I completely follow your arguments, meaning we skip this
> patch completely?

Or if you're still OK with your original patch

I'd happily use that instead.



 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-10 01:51    [W:0.050 / U:16.828 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site