Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] arm64: mm: Add p?d_large() definitions
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
References: <20190215170235.23360-1-steven.price@arm.com>
 <20190215170235.23360-2-steven.price@arm.com>
 <20190218112922.GT32477@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <fe36ed1c-b90d-8062-f7a9-e52d940733c4@arm.com>
 <20190218142951.GA10145@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20190218150657.GU32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <eb7e0203-db08-743b-dbed-a7032b352ded@arm.com>
 <20190218170451.GB10145@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
From:   Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
Message-ID: <c27d9f26-0213-3706-8bd9-ca71d20fbf06@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Feb 2019 17:22:32 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190218170451.GB10145@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 18/02/2019 17:04, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 03:30:38PM +0000, Steven Price wrote:
>> On 18/02/2019 15:06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 02:29:52PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>> I think that Peter means p?d_huge(x) should imply p?d_large(x), e.g.
>>>>
>>>> #define pmd_large(x) \
>>>> 	(pmd_sect(x) || pmd_huge(x) || pmd_trans_huge(x))
>>>>
>>>> ... which should work regardless of CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE.
>>>
>>> Yep, that.
>>
>> I'm not aware of a situation where pmd_huge(x) is true but pmd_sect(x)
>> isn't. Equally for pmd_huge(x) and pmd_trans_huge(x).
>>
>> What am I missing?
> 
> Having dug for a bit, I think you're right in asserting that pmd_sect()
> should cover those.
> 
> I had worried that wouldn't cater for contiguous pmd entries, but those
> have to be contiguous section entries, so they get picked up.
> 
> That said, do we have any special handling for contiguous PTEs? We use
> those in kernel mappings regardless of hugetlb support, and I didn't
> spot a pte_large() helper.

There's no special handling for contiguous PTEs because the page walk
code doesn't care - each PTE is valid individually even if it is part of
a contiguous group. So the walker can descend all levels in this case.
pte_large() if it existed would therefore always return 0.

The pte_entry() callback obviously might go looking for the contiguous
bit so that it can annotate the output correctly but that's different
from a 'large' page. The code in arch/arm64/mm/dump.c simply looks for
the PTE_CONT bit being set to do this annotation.

Steve