Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] arm64/mm: Drop __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET
From: Mike Kravetz <hidden>
Date: 2020-05-08 22:09:55
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
On 5/7/20 8:07 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Platform specific huge_ptep_get() is required only when fetching the huge PTE involves more than just dereferencing the page table pointer. This is not the case on arm64 platform. Hence huge_ptep_pte() can be dropped along with it's __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET subscription. Before that, it updates the generic huge_ptep_get() with READ_ONCE() which will prevent known page table issues with THP on arm64. https://lore.kernel.org/r/1506527369-19535-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com/ (local) Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <redacted> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h | 6 ------ include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h | 2 +- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h index 2eb6c234d594..b88878ddc88b 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h@@ -17,12 +17,6 @@ extern bool arch_hugetlb_migration_supported(struct hstate *h); #endif -#define __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET -static inline pte_t huge_ptep_get(pte_t *ptep) -{ - return READ_ONCE(*ptep); -} - static inline int is_hugepage_only_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, unsigned long len) {diff --git a/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h b/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h index 822f433ac95c..40f85decc2ee 100644 --- a/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h +++ b/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ static inline int huge_ptep_set_access_flags(struct vm_area_struct *vma, #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET static inline pte_t huge_ptep_get(pte_t *ptep) { - return *ptep; + return READ_ONCE(*ptep); } #endif
I know you made this change in response to Will's comment. And, since changes were made to consistently use READ_ONCE in arm64 code, it makes sense for that architecture. However, with this change to generic code, you introduce READ_ONCE to other architectures where it was not used before. Could this possibly introduce inconsistencies in their use of READ_ONCE? To be honest, I am not very good at identifying any possible issues this could cause. However, it does seem possible. Will was nervous about dropping this from arm64. I'm just a little nervous about adding it to other architectures. -- Mike Kravetz _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel