Re: [PATCH v5 10/19] mm: pagewalk: Add p4d_entry() and pgd_entry()
From: Steven Price
Date: Fri Mar 22 2019 - 06:37:21 EST
On 22/03/2019 10:29, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:11:59AM +0000, Steven Price wrote:
>> On 21/03/2019 21:15, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 02:19:44PM +0000, Steven Price wrote:
>>>> pgd_entry() and pud_entry() were removed by commit 0b1fbfe50006c410
>>>> ("mm/pagewalk: remove pgd_entry() and pud_entry()") because there were
>>>> no users. We're about to add users so reintroduce them, along with
>>>> p4d_entry() as we now have 5 levels of tables.
>>>> Note that commit a00cc7d9dd93d66a ("mm, x86: add support for
>>>> PUD-sized transparent hugepages") already re-added pud_entry() but with
>>>> different semantics to the other callbacks. Since there have never
>>>> been upstream users of this, revert the semantics back to match the
>>>> other callbacks. This means pud_entry() is called for all entries, not
>>>> just transparent huge pages.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx>
>>>> include/linux/mm.h | 9 ++++++---
>>>> mm/pagewalk.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
>>>> index 76769749b5a5..2983f2396a72 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
>>>> @@ -1367,10 +1367,9 @@ void unmap_vmas(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct vm_area_struct *start_vma,
>>>> * mm_walk - callbacks for walk_page_range
>>>> + * @pgd_entry: if set, called for each non-empty PGD (top-level) entry
>>>> + * @p4d_entry: if set, called for each non-empty P4D (1st-level) entry
>>> IMHO, p4d implies the 4th level :)
>> You have a good point there... I was simply working back from the
>> existing definitions (below) of PTE:4th, PMD:3rd, PUD:2nd. But it's
>> already somewhat broken by PGD:0th and my cop-out was calling it "top".
>>> I think it would make more sense to start counting from PTE rather than
>>> from PGD. Then it would be consistent across architectures with fewer
>> It would also be the opposite way round to architectures such as Arm
>> which number their levels, for example  refers to levels 0-3 (with 3
>> being PTE in Linux terms).
> By consistent I meant that for architectures with fewer levels we won't be
> describing PTE as level 4 when the architecture only has 2 levels.
Ah I see, although we've apparently been doing that for over a decade
>> Probably the least confusing thing is to drop the level numbers in
>> brackets since I don't believe they directly match any architecture, and
>> hopefully any user of the page walking code is already familiar with the
>> P?D terms used by the kernel.
> That's a fair assumption :)
> Still, maybe we keep your (top-level) for PGD and use (lowest level) for
> PTE and drop those in the middle?
Yes that's a good compromise.