diff mbox

[RFC,6/6] powerpc/kvm: change the condition of identifying hugetlb vm

Message ID 1433917639-31699-7-git-send-email-wenweitaowenwei@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Wenwei Tao June 10, 2015, 6:27 a.m. UTC 
Hugetlb VMAs are not mergeable, that means a VMA couldn't have VM_HUGETLB and
VM_MERGEABLE been set in the same time. So we use VM_HUGETLB to indicate new
mergeable VMAs. Because of that a VMA which has VM_HUGETLB been set is a hugetlb
VMA only if it doesn't have VM_MERGEABLE been set in the same time.

Signed-off-by: Wenwei Tao <wenweitaowenwei@gmail.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c |    3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Scott Wood July 2, 2015, 9:49 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 14:27 +0800, Wenwei Tao wrote:
> Hugetlb VMAs are not mergeable, that means a VMA couldn't have VM_HUGETLB 
> and
> VM_MERGEABLE been set in the same time. So we use VM_HUGETLB to indicate new
> mergeable VMAs. Because of that a VMA which has VM_HUGETLB been set is a 
> hugetlb
> VMA only if it doesn't have VM_MERGEABLE been set in the same time.

Eww.

If you must overload such bit combinations, please hide it behind a 
vm_is_hugetlb() function.

-Scott

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Wenwei Tao July 3, 2015, 8:47 a.m. UTC | #2 
Hi Scott

Thank you for your comments.

Kernel already has that function: is_vm_hugetlb_page() , but the
original code didn't use it,
in order to keep the coding style of the original code, I didn't use it either.

For the sentence like: "vma->vm_flags & VM_HUGETLB" , hiding it behind
'is_vm_hugetlb_page()' is ok,
but the sentence like: "vma->vm_flags &
(VM_LOCKED|VM_HUGETLB|VM_PFNMAP)" appears in the patch 2/6,
is it better to hide the bit combinations behind the
is_vm_hugetlb_page() ?  In my patch I just replaced it with
"vma->vm_flags & (VM_LOCKED|VM_PFNMAP) ||  (vma->vm_flags &
(VM_HUGETLB|VM_MERGEABLE)) == VM_HUGETLB".

I am a newbie to Linux kernel, do you have any good suggestions on
this situation?

Thank you
Wenwei

2015-07-03 5:49 GMT+08:00 Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>:
> On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 14:27 +0800, Wenwei Tao wrote:
>> Hugetlb VMAs are not mergeable, that means a VMA couldn't have VM_HUGETLB
>> and
>> VM_MERGEABLE been set in the same time. So we use VM_HUGETLB to indicate new
>> mergeable VMAs. Because of that a VMA which has VM_HUGETLB been set is a
>> hugetlb
>> VMA only if it doesn't have VM_MERGEABLE been set in the same time.
>
> Eww.
>
> If you must overload such bit combinations, please hide it behind a
> vm_is_hugetlb() function.
>
> -Scott
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Scott Wood July 6, 2015, 9:34 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 16:47 +0800, wenwei tao wrote:
> Hi Scott
> 
> Thank you for your comments.
> 
> Kernel already has that function: is_vm_hugetlb_page() , but the
> original code didn't use it,
> in order to keep the coding style of the original code, I didn't use it 
> either.
>
> For the sentence like: "vma->vm_flags & VM_HUGETLB" , hiding it behind
> 'is_vm_hugetlb_page()' is ok,
> but the sentence like: "vma->vm_flags &
> (VM_LOCKED|VM_HUGETLB|VM_PFNMAP)" appears in the patch 2/6,
> is it better to hide the bit combinations behind the
> is_vm_hugetlb_page() ?  In my patch I just replaced it with
> "vma->vm_flags & (VM_LOCKED|VM_PFNMAP) ||  (vma->vm_flags &
> (VM_HUGETLB|VM_MERGEABLE)) == VM_HUGETLB".

If you're going to do non-obvious things with the flags, it should be done in 
one place rather than throughout the code.  Why would you do the above and 
not "vma->vm_flags & (VM_LOCKED | VM_PFNMAP) || is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)"?

-Scott

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Wenwei Tao July 7, 2015, 8:05 a.m. UTC | #4 
Hi Scott

I understand what you said.

I will use the function 'is_vm_hugetlb_page()' to hide the bit
combinations according to your comments in the next version of patch
set.

But for the situation like below, there isn't an obvious structure
'vma', using 'is_vm_hugetlb_page()' maybe costly or even not possible.
void flush_tlb_mm_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
                unsigned long end, unsigned long vmflag)
{
    ...

    if (end == TLB_FLUSH_ALL || tlb_flushall_shift == -1
                    || vmflag & VM_HUGETLB) {
        local_flush_tlb();
        goto flush_all;
    }
...
}


Thank you
Wenwei

2015-07-07 5:34 GMT+08:00 Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>:
> On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 16:47 +0800, wenwei tao wrote:
>> Hi Scott
>>
>> Thank you for your comments.
>>
>> Kernel already has that function: is_vm_hugetlb_page() , but the
>> original code didn't use it,
>> in order to keep the coding style of the original code, I didn't use it
>> either.
>>
>> For the sentence like: "vma->vm_flags & VM_HUGETLB" , hiding it behind
>> 'is_vm_hugetlb_page()' is ok,
>> but the sentence like: "vma->vm_flags &
>> (VM_LOCKED|VM_HUGETLB|VM_PFNMAP)" appears in the patch 2/6,
>> is it better to hide the bit combinations behind the
>> is_vm_hugetlb_page() ?  In my patch I just replaced it with
>> "vma->vm_flags & (VM_LOCKED|VM_PFNMAP) ||  (vma->vm_flags &
>> (VM_HUGETLB|VM_MERGEABLE)) == VM_HUGETLB".
>
> If you're going to do non-obvious things with the flags, it should be done in
> one place rather than throughout the code.  Why would you do the above and
> not "vma->vm_flags & (VM_LOCKED | VM_PFNMAP) || is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)"?
>
> -Scott
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Scott Wood July 7, 2015, 7:47 p.m. UTC | #5 
On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 16:05 +0800, wenwei tao wrote:
> Hi Scott
> 
> I understand what you said.
> 
> I will use the function 'is_vm_hugetlb_page()' to hide the bit
> combinations according to your comments in the next version of patch
> set.
> 
> But for the situation like below, there isn't an obvious structure
> 'vma', using 'is_vm_hugetlb_page()' maybe costly or even not possible.
> void flush_tlb_mm_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
>                 unsigned long end, unsigned long vmflag)
> {
>     ...
> 
>     if (end == TLB_FLUSH_ALL || tlb_flushall_shift == -1
>                     || vmflag & VM_HUGETLB) {
>         local_flush_tlb();
>         goto flush_all;
>     }
> ...
> }

Add a function that operates on the flags directly, then.

-Scott

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
index cc536d4..d76f518 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
@@ -423,7 +423,8 @@  static inline int kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
 				break;
 			}
 		} else if (vma && hva >= vma->vm_start &&
-			   (vma->vm_flags & VM_HUGETLB)) {
+			((vma->vm_flags & (VM_HUGETLB | VM_MERGEABLE)) ==
+							VM_HUGETLB)) {
 			unsigned long psize = vma_kernel_pagesize(vma);
 
 			tsize = (gtlbe->mas1 & MAS1_TSIZE_MASK) >>