Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] mm: add PMD-level huge page support for remap_pfn_range()

[Yin Tirui]

On 9/24/2025 6:39 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 09:31:04PM +0800, Yin Tirui wrote:
> > +			entry = pte_clrhuge(pfn_pte(pmd_pfn(old_pmd), pmd_pgprot(old_pmd)));
>
> This doesn't make sense.  And I'm not saying you got this wrong; I
> suspect in terms of how things work today it's actually necessary.
> But the way we handle this stuff is so insane.

Thank you for pointing this out and the broader context.

> pte_clrhuge() should not exist.  If we have a PTE, it can't have the
> huge bit set, by definition (don't anybody mention hugetlbfs because
> that is an entirely separate pile of broken horrors).  I understand what
> you're trying to do here.  You want to construct a PTE that points to
> the same address as the first page of the PMD and has the same
> permissions.  But that *should* be written as:
>
> 	entry = pfn_pte(pmd_pfn(old_pmd), pmd_pgprot(old_pmd)));
>
> right?  Now, pmd_pgprot() might or might not want to return the huge bit
> set.  I'm not sure.  Perhaps you could have a look through and figure it

I've tested this on arm64, and pmd_pgprot() does return the huge bit 
set, which is exactly why I added pte_clrhuge().

> out.  But pfn_pte() should never return a PTE with the huge bit set.
> So if it is set in the pgorot on entry, it should filter it out.
>
> There are going to be consequences to this.  Maybe there's code
> somewhere that relies on pfn_pte() returning a PTE with the huge bit
> set.  Perhaps it's hugetlbfs.

I'll try to refactor pfn_pte() and related functions to filter out the 
huge bit set and test its impact on hugetlbfs.

> But we have to start cleaning this garbage up.  I did some work with
> e3981db444a0 and the commits leading up to that.  See
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250402181709.2386022-12-willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I'd like pte_clrhuge() to be deleted from x86, not added to arm and
> riscv.
I completely agree with the goal of deleting pte_clrhuge() rather than 
expanding it. I'll study your referenced work and align my approach with 
your efforts.

Would you recommend I address the pfn_pte() and related function 
refactoring as part of this patch series, or should I submit it as a 
separate patch series?

--
Best regards,
Yin Tirui