From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=eeko=PU=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DB2C43387
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 13:51:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12B092084E
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 13:51:12 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 12B092084E
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=c-s.fr
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43cLjp5PrxzDr81
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Sun, 13 Jan 2019 00:51:10 +1100 (AEDT)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=c-s.fr
 (client-ip=93.17.236.30; helo=pegase1.c-s.fr;
 envelope-from=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr; receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=c-s.fr
Received: from pegase1.c-s.fr (pegase1.c-s.fr [93.17.236.30])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43cLgz4M3CzDr7B
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Sun, 13 Jan 2019 00:49:34 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: from localhost (mailhub1-int [192.168.12.234])
 by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43cLgq65Zjz9vBmP;
 Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:49:27 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c-s.fr
Received: from pegase1.c-s.fr ([192.168.12.234])
 by localhost (pegase1.c-s.fr [192.168.12.234]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 8olI-kILdexS; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:49:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from messagerie.si.c-s.fr (messagerie.si.c-s.fr [192.168.25.192])
 by pegase1.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43cLgq5BBkz9vBmN;
 Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:49:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by messagerie.si.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2268B77F;
 Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:49:30 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at c-s.fr
Received: from messagerie.si.c-s.fr ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (messagerie.si.c-s.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023)
 with ESMTP id zFSHdAazdoZD; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:49:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PO15451 (unknown [192.168.4.90])
 by messagerie.si.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A89F8B74C;
 Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:49:29 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Introduce GFP_PGTABLE
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
 Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
References: <1547288798-10243-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <20190112121230.GQ6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Message-ID: <ddd59fdc-3d8f-4015-e851-e7f099193a1b@c-s.fr>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:49:29 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190112121230.GQ6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, mhocko@suse.com, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
 peterz@infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
 will.deacon@arm.com, christoffer.dall@arm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com,
 linux@armlinux.org.uk, mingo@redhat.com, vbabka@suse.cz, rientjes@google.com,
 marc.zyngier@arm.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, shakeelb@google.com,
 kirill@shutemov.name, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
 ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, steve.capper@arm.com,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
 robin.murphy@arm.com
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>



Le 12/01/2019 à 13:12, Matthew Wilcox a écrit :
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 03:56:38PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> All architectures have been defining their own PGALLOC_GFP as (GFP_KERNEL |
>> __GFP_ZERO) and using it for allocating page table pages.
> 
> Except that's not true.
> 
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c
>> @@ -13,19 +13,17 @@ phys_addr_t physical_mask __ro_after_init = (1ULL << __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT) - 1;
>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(physical_mask);
>>   #endif
>>   
>> -#define PGALLOC_GFP (GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO)
>> -
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHPTE
> 
> ...
> 
>>   pte_t *pte_alloc_one_kernel(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>   {
>> -	return (pte_t *)__get_free_page(PGALLOC_GFP & ~__GFP_ACCOUNT);
>> +	return (pte_t *)__get_free_page(GFP_PGTABLE & ~__GFP_ACCOUNT);
>>   }

As far as I can see,

#define GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ACCOUNT)

So what's the difference between:

(GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO) & ~__GFP_ACCOUNT

and

(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO) & ~__GFP_ACCOUNT

Christophe

> 
> I think x86 was the only odd one out here, but you'll need to try again ...
>