Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <01362246-05e6-f57f-9f64-c8d2524e685d@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Aug 2022 16:59:31 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Split huge PUD on wp_huge_pud fallback
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Gowans, James" <jgowans@amazon.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "christian.koenig@amd.com" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7ZuaGVyciwgSmFuIEgu?= <jschoenh@amazon.de>,
        "thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <6f48d622eb8bce1ae5dd75327b0b73894a2ec407.camel@amazon.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <6f48d622eb8bce1ae5dd75327b0b73894a2ec407.camel@amazon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 23.06.22 07:24, Gowans, James wrote:
> Currently the implementation will split the PUD when a fallback is taken
> inside the create_huge_pud function. This isn't where it should be done:
> the splitting should be done in wp_huge_pud, just like it's done for
> PMDs. Reason being that if a callback is taken during create, there is
> no PUD yet so nothing to split, whereas if a fallback is taken when
> encountering a write protection fault there is something to split.
> 
> It looks like this was the original intention with the commit where the
> splitting was introduced, but somehow it got moved to the wrong place
> between v1 and v2 of the patch series. Rebase mistake perhaps.
> 
> Fixes: 327e9fd48972 ("mm: Split huge pages on write-notify or COW")

Right, the functions should just look like create_huge_pmd()/wp_huge_pmd().

I do wonder if there was a reason to do it differently, though ... I
can't spot any in current code.

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb