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;
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 13:51:49 +0200
From:   Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Wang, Haiyue" <haiyue.wang@intel.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "david@redhat.com" <david@redhat.com>,
        "apopple@nvidia.com" <apopple@nvidia.com>,
        "linmiaohe@huawei.com" <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        "songmuchun@bytedance.com" <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        "naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev" <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev>,
        "alex.sierra@amd.com" <alex.sierra@amd.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] mm: migration: fix the FOLL_GET failure on
 following huge page
Message-ID: <20220818135149.7b043a58@thinkpad>
In-Reply-To: <20220816224322.33e0dfbcbf522fcdc2026f0e@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20220812084921.409142-1-haiyue.wang@intel.com>
        <20220816022102.582865-1-haiyue.wang@intel.com>
        <20220816022102.582865-2-haiyue.wang@intel.com>
        <20220816175838.211a1b1e85bc68c439101995@linux-foundation.org>
        <BYAPR11MB3495F747CBF95E079E8FC8A5F76A9@BYAPR11MB3495.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
        <20220816224322.33e0dfbcbf522fcdc2026f0e@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 22:43:22 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 03:31:37 +0000 "Wang, Haiyue" <haiyue.wang@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > > >  		}
> > > 
> > > I would be better to fix this for real at those three client code sites?
> > 
> > Then 5.19 will break for a while to wait for the final BIG patch ?
> 
> If that's the proposal then your [1/2] should have had a cc:stable and
> changelog words describing the plan for 6.0.
> 
> But before we do that I'd like to see at least a prototype of the final
> fixes to s390 and hugetlb, so we can assess those as preferable for
> backporting.  I don't think they'll be terribly intrusive or risky?
> 

The private follow_huge_pud() for s390 is just some leftover, and the
only reason is / was that the generic version was using pte_page()
instead of pud_page(), which would not work for s390. See also commit
97534127012f ("mm/hugetlb: use pmd_page() in follow_huge_pmd()").

Since commit 3a194f3f8ad01 ("mm/hugetlb: make pud_huge() and
follow_huge_pud() aware of non-present pud entry") made
follow_huge_pud() behave similar to follow_huge_pmd(), in particular
also adding pud_page(), we can now switch to the generic version.

Note that we cannot support migration / hwpoison for hugetlb or THP,
because of different layout for PTE and PMD/PUD on s390. The generic
swp_entry functions all require proper PTEs, which wouldn't work on
PMD/PUD entries. In theory, at least for hugetlb, due to the "fake
PTE" conversion logic in huge_ptep_get(), we might be able to also
fake swp_entries, but the other problem is that we do not have enough
free bits in the PMD/PUD, so there probably will never be migration
support for huge pages on s390.

Anyway, that should not matter wrt to switching to the generic
follow_huge_pud(), because is_hugetlb_entry_migration() should always
return false, and no special change to pud_huge() check should be
needed like on x86.