Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 May 2022 16:46:03 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm: change huge_ptep_clear_flush() to return the original pte | From | Baolin Wang <> |
| |
On 5/9/2022 1:46 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > Le 08/05/2022 à 15:09, Baolin Wang a écrit : >> >> >> On 5/8/2022 7:09 PM, Muchun Song wrote: >>> On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 05:36:39PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >>>> It is incorrect to use ptep_clear_flush() to nuke a hugetlb page >>>> table when unmapping or migrating a hugetlb page, and will change >>>> to use huge_ptep_clear_flush() instead in the following patches. >>>> >>>> So this is a preparation patch, which changes the >>>> huge_ptep_clear_flush() >>>> to return the original pte to help to nuke a hugetlb page table. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> >>>> Acked-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> >> >> Thanks for reviewing. >> >>> >>> But one nit below: >>> >>> [...] >>>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c >>>> index 8605d7e..61a21af 100644 >>>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c >>>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c >>>> @@ -5342,7 +5342,7 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_wp(struct mm_struct >>>> *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma, >>>> ClearHPageRestoreReserve(new_page); >>>> /* Break COW or unshare */ >>>> - huge_ptep_clear_flush(vma, haddr, ptep); >>>> + (void)huge_ptep_clear_flush(vma, haddr, ptep); >>> >>> Why add a "(void)" here? Is there any warning if no "(void)"? >>> IIUC, I think we can remove this, right? >> >> I did not meet any warning without the casting, but this is per Mike's >> comment[1] to make the code consistent with other functions casting to >> void type explicitly in hugetlb.c file. >> >> [1] >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/495c4ebe-a5b4-afb6-4cb0-956c1b18d0cc@oracle.com/ >> > > As far as I understand, Mike said that you should be accompagnied with a > big fat comment explaining why we ignore the returned value from > huge_ptep_clear_flush(). > > By the way huge_ptep_clear_flush() is not declared 'must_check' so this > cast is just visual polution and should be removed. > > In the meantime the comment suggested by Mike should be added instead. Sorry for my misunderstanding. I just follow the explicit void casting like other places in hugetlb.c file. And I am not sure if it is useful adding some comments like below, since we did not need the original pte value in the COW case mapping with a new page, and the code is more readable already I think.
Mike, could you help to clarify what useful comments would you like? and remove the explicit void casting? Thanks.
/* * Just ignore the return value with new page mapped. */
| |