Received: by 2002:a25:8b91:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp13527107ybl; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:10:00 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyaqOphxchDhHK9Vv7WyH7h0+B5vrle9UZ2Wr1oOYfqxdGcT3FwFThNUJUeS6nNNM58nmqL X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4f18:: with SMTP id d24mr66952440otl.179.1577657400259; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:10:00 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1577657400; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=c394EaJUX6JuYoRu6ZhUMF6kojwS6k2Go4jQ/eADUBMGdptbeIfdiBxCgt0yUFxsZc TNEgMhi8CvyOTsxqErYUaqXJDTZWCE/uFiwBl4zFy/RZyYkP+Byj6SbOWY7lSQOMqw/f 4cpeuu1NS8rNpRIrX4YNCWjwbpj5OPEElpoew0R/xDmi2xlcHRrz3aT/nR8RDNSYxwFA MubBex9gpXKnYarpaVnvE/wM/pLiHJy/+tQsFseyOX0wkgKQKdVfE+0E54kb0xbxEiVl ydjyU4MAwxIYAWNljbIIXPiNUKfkt7qs6s98Jq5+SLWIKqTLlKQFEGJUYHTiv6gGiW/5 PAuw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:reply-to:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=YGqQa7N4FL72rJglYytU91HxCNFQxZuzq1xndYFIu+A=; b=pbnf/3u1VR3WIt9ZcoHZCU2inTLzUwBOQuRZNQTupPbkdw82RiNCD92WVO0wGex/CW 0txXmiMTi6rueCoj8x1WVfFp3nNzLgKMjfWE4NbrNso9qCoSrH36fRuHWb/+8nqZZdDo fTQEpk3EROx+ZOsTudQDV2kaTbGCV8aylFewtitV16Cx24YJa8+IXI9WJUv2UYDx3E72 MNSMKtm2yBljC0J9zdWoT8Z9ldzSyIRxsx5tQ8zzDTlUaDUpTpD+yKLd8j8/+bJc+H84 HFELOIe6sZagA42VGDHcue0Ez68QuRrlBaYR/s7cDSaQMqnUogOJm69TbV6tXJpK0sVD ccLg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id g5si23176025otn.232.2019.12.29.14.09.23; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:10:00 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726596AbfL2WHG (ORCPT + 99 others); Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:07:06 -0500 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]:63420 "EHLO mga12.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726416AbfL2WHG (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:07:06 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Dec 2019 14:07:05 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,372,1571727600"; d="scan'208";a="243706077" Received: from richard.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.159.54]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Dec 2019 14:07:04 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 06:07:05 +0800 From: Wei Yang To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Wei Yang , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [Patch v2] mm/rmap.c: split huge pmd when it really is Message-ID: <20191229220705.GA22258@richard> Reply-To: Wei Yang References: <20191223222856.7189-1-richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> <20191223231120.GA31820@bombadil.infradead.org> <20191224015602.GB7739@richard> <20191227151346.GA10799@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191227151346.GA10799@bombadil.infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 07:13:46AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 09:56:02AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 03:11:20PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> >On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 06:28:56AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >> >> When page is not NULL, function is called by try_to_unmap_one() with >> >> TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD set. There are two cases to call try_to_unmap_one() >> >> with TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD set: >> >> >> >> * unmap_page() >> >> * shrink_page_list() >> >> >> >> In both case, the page passed to try_to_unmap_one() is PageHead() of the >> >> THP. If this page's mapping address in process is not HPAGE_PMD_SIZE >> >> aligned, this means the THP is not mapped as PMD THP in this process. >> >> This could happen when we do mremap() a PMD size range to an un-aligned >> >> address. >> >> >> >> Currently, this case is handled by following check in __split_huge_pmd() >> >> luckily. >> >> >> >> page != pmd_page(*pmd) >> >> >> >> This patch checks the address to skip some work. >> > >> >The description here is confusing to me. >> > >> >> Sorry for the confusion. >> >> Below is my understanding, if not correct or proper, just let me know :-) >> >> According to current comment in __split_huge_pmd(), we check pmd_page with >> page for migration case. While actually, this check also helps in the >> following two cases when page already split-ed: >> >> * page just split-ed in place >> * page split-ed and moved to non-PMD aligned address >> >> In both cases, pmd_page() is pointing to the PTE level page table. That's why >> we don't split one already split-ed THP page. >> >> If current code really intend to cover these two cases, sorry for my poor >> understanding. >> >> >> + /* >> >> + * When page is not NULL, function is called by try_to_unmap_one() >> >> + * with TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD set. There are two places set >> >> + * TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD >> >> + * >> >> + * unmap_page() >> >> + * shrink_page_list() >> >> + * >> >> + * In both cases, the "page" here is the PageHead() of a THP. >> >> + * >> >> + * If the page is not a PMD mapped huge page, e.g. after mremap(), it >> >> + * is not necessary to split it. >> >> + */ >> >> + if (page && !IS_ALIGNED(address, HPAGE_PMD_SIZE)) >> >> + return; >> > >> >Repeating 75% of it as comments doesn't make it any less confusing. And >> >it feels like we're digging a pothole for someone to fall into later. >> >Why not make it make sense ... >> > >> > if (page && !IS_ALIGNED(address, page_size(page)) >> > return; >> >> Hmm... Use HPAGE_PMD_SIZE here wants to emphasize we want the address to be >> PMD aligned. If just use page_size() here, may confuse the audience? > >I'm OK with using HPAGE_PMD_SIZE here. I was trying to future-proof >this function for supporting 64kB pages with a 4kB page size on ARM, >but this function will need changes for that anyway, so I'm OK with >your suggestion. Thanks for your comments. :-) -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me