From: Ma Wupeng <[email protected]>
Patch #1 move follow_phys to memtype.c since only pat use this.
Patch #2 cleanup parameter in follow_phys.
Patch #3 drop the unnecessary WARN_ON_ONCE if follow_phys fails.
Changelog since v3:
- rebase to latest linux
- fix compile warnings
Changelog since v2:
- rebase to latest linux
Changelog since v1:
- split patch #1 into two patches based on Boris's advise
Ma Wupeng (3):
x86/mm/pat: Move follow_phys to pat-related file
x86/mm/pat: Cleanup unused parameter in follow_phys
x86/mm/pat: Remove WARN_ON_ONCE if follow_phys fails
arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
include/linux/mm.h | 2 --
mm/memory.c | 28 ----------------------------
3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
--
2.25.1
On 2024/2/20 16:37, Xin Li wrote:
> On 2/19/2024 7:48 PM, Wupeng Ma wrote:
>> From: Ma Wupeng <[email protected]>
>>
>
> This patch set is all about follow_phys() cleanups, so "Cleanup for PAT"
> seems too generic.
>
>> Patch #1 move follow_phys to memtype.c since only pat use this.
>> Patch #2 cleanup parameter in follow_phys.
>> Patch #3 drop the unnecessary WARN_ON_ONCE if follow_phys fails.
>
> I'm more curious why follow_phys() ended up this way?
>
> follow_phys() was introduced in commit 28b2ee20c7cba ("access_process_vm
> device memory infrastructure") in 2008 for getting a physical page address
> for a virtual address, and used in generic_access_phys(). And later it's
> used in x86 PAT code.
>
> Commit 03668a4debf4f ("mm: use generic follow_pte() in follow_phys()") made
> follow_phys() more of a wrapper of follow_pte(), and commit 96667f8a4382d
> ("mm: Close race in generic_access_phys") replaced follow_phys() with
> follow_pte() in generic_access_phys(). And the end result is that
> follow_phys() is used in x86 PAT code only.
Thanks for the explanation. I have a better understanding of the history of
this function.
>
> As follow_phys() in untrack_pfn() can be replaced with follow_pfn(), then
Yes, this can be replaced with follow_pfn().
> maybe we don't have to keep follow_phys(), and just use follow_pte() in
> track_pfn_copy()?
As follow_phys() will return unsigned long *prot which is need in track_pfn_copy(),
we need to do something with this.
Can we replace follow_pfn with follow_phys()?
Thanks!
Ma
>
> Thanks!
> Xin
>
>>
>> Changelog since v3:
>> - rebase to latest linux
>> - fix compile warnings
>>
>> Changelog since v2:
>> - rebase to latest linux
>>
>> Changelog since v1:
>> - split patch #1 into two patches based on Boris's advise
>>
>> Ma Wupeng (3):
>> x86/mm/pat: Move follow_phys to pat-related file
>> x86/mm/pat: Cleanup unused parameter in follow_phys
>> x86/mm/pat: Remove WARN_ON_ONCE if follow_phys fails
>>
>> arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> include/linux/mm.h | 2 --
>> mm/memory.c | 28 ----------------------------
>> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>>
>
>
On 2/19/2024 7:48 PM, Wupeng Ma wrote:
> From: Ma Wupeng <[email protected]>
>
This patch set is all about follow_phys() cleanups, so "Cleanup for PAT"
seems too generic.
> Patch #1 move follow_phys to memtype.c since only pat use this.
> Patch #2 cleanup parameter in follow_phys.
> Patch #3 drop the unnecessary WARN_ON_ONCE if follow_phys fails.
I'm more curious why follow_phys() ended up this way?
follow_phys() was introduced in commit 28b2ee20c7cba ("access_process_vm
device memory infrastructure") in 2008 for getting a physical page address
for a virtual address, and used in generic_access_phys(). And later it's
used in x86 PAT code.
Commit 03668a4debf4f ("mm: use generic follow_pte() in follow_phys()") made
follow_phys() more of a wrapper of follow_pte(), and commit 96667f8a4382d
("mm: Close race in generic_access_phys") replaced follow_phys() with
follow_pte() in generic_access_phys(). And the end result is that
follow_phys() is used in x86 PAT code only.
As follow_phys() in untrack_pfn() can be replaced with follow_pfn(), then
maybe we don't have to keep follow_phys(), and just use follow_pte() in
track_pfn_copy()?
Thanks!
Xin
>
> Changelog since v3:
> - rebase to latest linux
> - fix compile warnings
>
> Changelog since v2:
> - rebase to latest linux
>
> Changelog since v1:
> - split patch #1 into two patches based on Boris's advise
>
> Ma Wupeng (3):
> x86/mm/pat: Move follow_phys to pat-related file
> x86/mm/pat: Cleanup unused parameter in follow_phys
> x86/mm/pat: Remove WARN_ON_ONCE if follow_phys fails
>
> arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> include/linux/mm.h | 2 --
> mm/memory.c | 28 ----------------------------
> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
On 2/20/2024 1:06 AM, mawupeng wrote:
> On 2024/2/20 16:37, Xin Li wrote:
>> On 2/19/2024 7:48 PM, Wupeng Ma wrote:
>> follow_phys() was introduced in commit 28b2ee20c7cba ("access_process_vm
>> device memory infrastructure") in 2008 for getting a physical page address
>> for a virtual address, and used in generic_access_phys(). And later it's
>> used in x86 PAT code.
>>
>> Commit 03668a4debf4f ("mm: use generic follow_pte() in follow_phys()") made
>> follow_phys() more of a wrapper of follow_pte(), and commit 96667f8a4382d
>> ("mm: Close race in generic_access_phys") replaced follow_phys() with
>> follow_pte() in generic_access_phys(). And the end result is that
>> follow_phys() is used in x86 PAT code only.
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I have a better understanding of the history of
> this function.
>
"git blame" tells the story.
>>
>> As follow_phys() in untrack_pfn() can be replaced with follow_pfn(), then
>
> Yes, this can be replaced with follow_pfn().
>
>> maybe we don't have to keep follow_phys(), and just use follow_pte() in
>> track_pfn_copy()?
>
> As follow_phys() will return unsigned long *prot which is need in track_pfn_copy(),
> we need to do something with this.
Commit 96667f8a4382d did that already.
> Can we replace follow_pfn with follow_phys()?
Sorry, I don't get your point.
Thanks!
Xin