Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-76057-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 16:04:38 +0800
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
	Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@linux.dev>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] mm: Provide generic pmd_thp_or_huge()
Message-ID: <ZdcAFpRijQdaYV2A@x1n>
References: <20240103091423.400294-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20240103091423.400294-4-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20240115175551.GP734935@nvidia.com>
 <ZdXEYfs_xhS_9gRo@x1n>
 <20240221125753.GQ13330@nvidia.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240221125753.GQ13330@nvidia.com>

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 08:57:53AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 05:37:37PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 01:55:51PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 05:14:13PM +0800, peterx@redhat.com wrote:
> > > > From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > ARM defines pmd_thp_or_huge(), detecting either a THP or a huge PMD.  It
> > > > can be a helpful helper if we want to merge more THP and hugetlb code
> > > > paths.  Make it a generic default implementation, only exist when
> > > > CONFIG_MMU.  Arch can overwrite it by defining its own version.
> > > > 
> > > > For example, ARM's pgtable-2level.h defines it to always return false.
> > > > 
> > > > Keep the macro declared with all config, it should be optimized to a false
> > > > anyway if !THP && !HUGETLB.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/linux/pgtable.h | 4 ++++
> > > >  mm/gup.c                | 3 +--
> > > >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
> > > > index 466cf477551a..2b42e95a4e3a 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
> > > > @@ -1362,6 +1362,10 @@ static inline int pmd_write(pmd_t pmd)
> > > >  #endif /* pmd_write */
> > > >  #endif /* CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE */
> > > >  
> > > > +#ifndef pmd_thp_or_huge
> > > > +#define pmd_thp_or_huge(pmd)	(pmd_huge(pmd) || pmd_trans_huge(pmd))
> > > > +#endif
> > > 
> > > Why not just use pmd_leaf() ?
> > > 
> > > This GUP case seems to me exactly like what pmd_leaf() should really
> > > do and be used for..
> > 
> > I think I mostly agree with you, and these APIs are indeed confusing.  IMHO
> > the challenge is about the risk of breaking others on small changes in the
> > details where evil resides.
> 
> These APIs are super confusing, which is why I brought it up.. Adding
> even more subtly different variations is not helping.
> 
> I think pmd_leaf means the entry is present and refers to a physical
> page not another radix level.
> 
> > > eg x86 does:
> > > 
> > > #define pmd_leaf	pmd_large
> > > static inline int pmd_large(pmd_t pte)
> > > 	return pmd_flags(pte) & _PAGE_PSE;
> > > 
> > > static inline int pmd_trans_huge(pmd_t pmd)
> > > 	return (pmd_val(pmd) & (_PAGE_PSE|_PAGE_DEVMAP)) == _PAGE_PSE;
> > > 
> > > int pmd_huge(pmd_t pmd)
> > >         return !pmd_none(pmd) &&
> > >                 (pmd_val(pmd) & (_PAGE_PRESENT|_PAGE_PSE)) != _PAGE_PRESENT;
> > 
> > For example, here I don't think it's strictly pmd_leaf()? As pmd_huge()
> > will return true if PRESENT=0 && PSE=0 (as long as none pte ruled out
> > first), while pmd_leaf() will return false; I think that came from
> > cbef8478bee5. 
> 
> Yikes, but do you even want to handle non-present entries in GUP
> world? Isn't everything gated by !present in the first place?

I am as confused indeed.

> 
> > Besides that, there're also other cases where it's not clear of such direct
> > replacement, not until further investigated.  E.g., arm-3level has:
> > 
> > #define pmd_leaf(pmd)		pmd_sect(pmd)
> > #define pmd_sect(pmd)		((pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TYPE_MASK) == \
> > 						 PMD_TYPE_SECT)
> > #define PMD_TYPE_SECT		(_AT(pmdval_t, 1) << 0)
> > 
> > While pmd_huge() there relies on PMD_TABLE_BIT ()
> 
> I looked at tht, it looked OK.. 
> 
> #define PMD_TYPE_MASK               (_AT(pmdval_t, 3) << 0)
> #define PMD_TABLE_BIT               (_AT(pmdval_t, 1) << 1)
> 
> It is the same stuff, just a little confusingly written

True, my eyes decided to skip all the shifts. :-( Ok then, let me see
whether I can give it a stab on the pXd_huge() mess.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu