lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 00/21] Generic page walk and ptdump
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 02:39:22PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 07/24/2019 07:05 PM, Steven Price wrote:
> > There isn't any problem as such with using p?d_large macros. However the
> > name "large" has caused confusion in the past. In particular there are
> > two types of "large" page:
> >
> > 1. leaf entries at high levels than normal ('sections' on Arm, for 4K
> > pages this gives you 2MB and 1GB pages).
> >
> > 2. sets of contiguous entries that can share a TLB entry (the
> > 'Contiguous bit' on Arm - which for 4K pages gives you 16 entries = 64
> > KB 'pages').
>
> This is arm64 specific and AFAIK there are no other architectures where there
> will be any confusion wrt p?d_large() not meaning a single entry.
>
> As you have noted before if we are printing individual entries with PTE_CONT
> then they need not be identified as p??d_large(). In which case p?d_large()
> can just safely point to p?d_sect() identifying regular huge leaf entries.

Steven's stuck in the middle of things here, but I do object to p?d_large()
because I find it bonkers to have p?d_large() and p?d_huge() mean completely
different things when they are synonyms in the English language.

Yes, p?d_leaf() matches the terminology used by the Arm architecture, but
given that most page table structures are arranged as a 'tree', then it's
not completely unreasonable, in my opinion. If you have a more descriptive
name, we could use that instead. We could also paint it blue.

> > In many cases both give the same effect (reduce pressure on TLBs and
> > requires contiguous and aligned physical addresses). But for this case
> > we only care about the 'leaf' case (because the contiguous bit makes no
> > difference to walking the page tables).
>
> Right and we can just safely identify section entries with it. What will be
> the problem with that ? Again this is only arm64 specific.
>
> >
> > As far as I'm aware p?d_large() currently implements the first and
> > p?d_(trans_)huge() implements either 1 or 2 depending on the architecture.
>
> AFAIK option 2 exists only on arm6 platform. IIUC generic MM requires two
> different huge page dentition from platform. HugeTLB identifies large entries
> at PGD|PUD|PMD after converting it's content into PTE first. So there is no
> need for direct large page definitions for other levels.
>
> 1. THP - pmd_trans_huge()
> 2. HugeTLB - pte_huge() CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_GENERAL_HUGETLB is set
>
> A simple check for p?d_large() on mm/ and include/linux shows that there are
> no existing usage for these in generic MM. Hence it is available.

Alternatively, it means we have a good opportunity to give it a better name
before it spreads into the core code.

> IMHO the new addition of p?d_leaf() can be avoided and p?d_large() should be
> cleaned up (if required) in platforms and used in generic functions.

Again, I disagree and think p?d_large() should be confined to arch code
if it sticks around at all.

I don't usually care much about naming, but in this case I really find
the status quo needlessly confusing.

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-25 11:31    [W:0.078 / U:10.092 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site