From: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, shan.gavin@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: Remove add_huge_page_size() Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 10:15:59 +1000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <e13bb496-7988-e096-2131-78c004231f27@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200506071927.GB7021@willie-the-truck> On 5/6/20 5:19 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:36:43PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> >> >> On 05/06/2020 12:16 PM, Gavin Shan wrote: >>> The function add_huge_page_size(), wrapper of hugetlb_add_hstate(), >>> avoids to register duplicated huge page states for same size. However, >>> the same logic has been included in hugetlb_add_hstate(). So it seems >>> unnecessary to keep add_huge_page_size() and this just removes it. >> >> Makes sense. >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 18 +++++------------- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c >>> index bbeb6a5a6ba6..ed7530413941 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c >>> @@ -441,22 +441,14 @@ void huge_ptep_clear_flush(struct vm_area_struct *vma, >>> clear_flush(vma->vm_mm, addr, ptep, pgsize, ncontig); >>> } >>> >>> -static void __init add_huge_page_size(unsigned long size) >>> -{ >>> - if (size_to_hstate(size)) >>> - return; >>> - >>> - hugetlb_add_hstate(ilog2(size) - PAGE_SHIFT); >>> -} >>> - >>> static int __init hugetlbpage_init(void) >>> { >>> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES >>> - add_huge_page_size(PUD_SIZE); >>> + hugetlb_add_hstate(PUD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT); >>> #endif >>> - add_huge_page_size(CONT_PMD_SIZE); >>> - add_huge_page_size(PMD_SIZE); >>> - add_huge_page_size(CONT_PTE_SIZE); >>> + hugetlb_add_hstate(CONT_PMD_SHIFT + PMD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT); >>> + hugetlb_add_hstate(PMD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT); >>> + hugetlb_add_hstate(CONT_PTE_SHIFT); > > Something similar has already been done in linux-next. > Thanks, Will. I didn't check linux-next before posting this patch. Please ignore it then :) >> Should these page order values be converted into macros instead. Also >> we should probably keep (CONT_PTE_SHIFT + PAGE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT) as >> is to make things more clear. > > I think the real confusion stems from us not being consistent with your > *_SHIFT definitions on arm64. It's madness for CONT_PTE_SHIFT to be smaller > than PAGE_SHIFT imo, but it's just cosmetic I guess. > Yeah, Do you want me to post a patch, to fix it? > Will > Thanks, Gavin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, shan.gavin@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: Remove add_huge_page_size() Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 10:15:59 +1000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <e13bb496-7988-e096-2131-78c004231f27@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200506071927.GB7021@willie-the-truck> On 5/6/20 5:19 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:36:43PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> >> >> On 05/06/2020 12:16 PM, Gavin Shan wrote: >>> The function add_huge_page_size(), wrapper of hugetlb_add_hstate(), >>> avoids to register duplicated huge page states for same size. However, >>> the same logic has been included in hugetlb_add_hstate(). So it seems >>> unnecessary to keep add_huge_page_size() and this just removes it. >> >> Makes sense. >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 18 +++++------------- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c >>> index bbeb6a5a6ba6..ed7530413941 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c >>> @@ -441,22 +441,14 @@ void huge_ptep_clear_flush(struct vm_area_struct *vma, >>> clear_flush(vma->vm_mm, addr, ptep, pgsize, ncontig); >>> } >>> >>> -static void __init add_huge_page_size(unsigned long size) >>> -{ >>> - if (size_to_hstate(size)) >>> - return; >>> - >>> - hugetlb_add_hstate(ilog2(size) - PAGE_SHIFT); >>> -} >>> - >>> static int __init hugetlbpage_init(void) >>> { >>> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES >>> - add_huge_page_size(PUD_SIZE); >>> + hugetlb_add_hstate(PUD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT); >>> #endif >>> - add_huge_page_size(CONT_PMD_SIZE); >>> - add_huge_page_size(PMD_SIZE); >>> - add_huge_page_size(CONT_PTE_SIZE); >>> + hugetlb_add_hstate(CONT_PMD_SHIFT + PMD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT); >>> + hugetlb_add_hstate(PMD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT); >>> + hugetlb_add_hstate(CONT_PTE_SHIFT); > > Something similar has already been done in linux-next. > Thanks, Will. I didn't check linux-next before posting this patch. Please ignore it then :) >> Should these page order values be converted into macros instead. Also >> we should probably keep (CONT_PTE_SHIFT + PAGE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT) as >> is to make things more clear. > > I think the real confusion stems from us not being consistent with your > *_SHIFT definitions on arm64. It's madness for CONT_PTE_SHIFT to be smaller > than PAGE_SHIFT imo, but it's just cosmetic I guess. > Yeah, Do you want me to post a patch, to fix it? > Will > Thanks, Gavin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-07 0:16 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-05-06 6:46 [PATCH] arm64/mm: Remove add_huge_page_size() Gavin Shan 2020-05-06 6:46 ` Gavin Shan 2020-05-06 7:06 ` Anshuman Khandual 2020-05-06 7:06 ` Anshuman Khandual 2020-05-06 7:19 ` Will Deacon 2020-05-06 7:19 ` Will Deacon 2020-05-07 0:15 ` Gavin Shan [this message] 2020-05-07 0:15 ` Gavin Shan 2020-05-07 8:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-05-07 8:37 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=e13bb496-7988-e096-2131-78c004231f27@redhat.com \ --to=gshan@redhat.com \ --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=shan.gavin@gmail.com \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.