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 v4 3/9] mm: pagewalk: Don't split transhuge pmds when a
 pmd_entry is present
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_Hellstr=c3=b6m_=28VMware=29?= 
        <thomas_os@shipmail.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= <jglisse@redhat.com>
References: <20191008091508.2682-1-thomas_os@shipmail.org>
 <20191008091508.2682-4-thomas_os@shipmail.org>
 <20191009152737.p42w7w456zklxz72@box>
 <CAHk-=wh4waroKr-Xtcv+5pTxBcHxGEj-g73eQvXVawML_C0EXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <03d85a6a-e24a-82f4-93b8-86584b463471@shipmail.org>
 <CAHk-=whhdRSqjX5wy1LzFYnOG58UztpifkNvbxBcTVbT3Mzv4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <MN2PR05MB6141B981C2CAB4955D59747EA1950@MN2PR05MB6141.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAHk-=wgy-ULe8UmEDn9gCCmTtw65chS0h309WrTaQhK3RAXM-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <c054849e-1e24-6b27-6a54-740ea9d17054@shipmail.org>
 <CAHk-=wgmr-BPMTnSuKrAMoHL_A0COV_sZkdcNB9aosYfouA_fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <80f25292-585c-7729-2a23-7c46b3309a1a@shipmail.org>
Organization: VMware Inc.
Message-ID: <54e65cdd-1b6a-d4d6-0305-dcb36bc49c41@shipmail.org>
Date:   Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:50:49 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <80f25292-585c-7729-2a23-7c46b3309a1a@shipmail.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10/10/19 12:30 AM, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
> On 10/9/19 10:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:06 PM Thomas Hellström (VMware)
>> <thomas_os@shipmail.org> wrote:
>>> On 10/9/19 9:20 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>> Don't you get it? There *is* no PTE level if you didn't split.
>>> Hmm, This paragraph makes me think we have very different 
>>> perceptions about what I'm trying to achieve.
>> It's not about what you're trying to achieve.
>>
>> It's about the actual code.
>>
>> You cannot do that
>>
>>> - split_huge_pmd(walk->vma, pmd, addr);
>>> +               if (!ops->pmd_entry)
>>> +                       split_huge_pmd(walk->vma, pmd, addr);
>> it's insane.
>>
>> You *have* to call split_huge_pmd() if you're doing to call the
>> pte_entry() function.
>>
>> I don't understand why you are arguing. This is not about "feelings"
>> and "intentions" or about "trying to achieve".
>>
>> This is about cold hard "you can't do that", and this is now the third
>> time I tell you _why_ you can't do that: you can't walk the last level
>> if you don't _have_ a last level. You have to split the pmd to do so.
> It's not so much arguing but rather trying to understand your concerns 
> and your perception of what the final code should look like.
>>
>> End of story.
>
> So is it that you want pte_entry() to be strictly called for *each* 
> virtual address, even if we have a pmd_entry()?
> In that case I completely follow your arguments, meaning we skip this 
> patch completely?

Or if you're still OK with your original patch

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wj5NiFPouYd6zUgY4K7VovOAxQT-xhDRjD6j5hifBWi_g@mail.gmail.com/

I'd happily use that instead.

Thanks,

Thomas