Re: [PATCH 09/13] mm/powerpc: Redefine pXd_huge() with pXd_leaf()

[Peter Xu]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 08:45:34AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 13/03/2024 à 22:47, peterx@xxxxxxxxxx a écrit :
> > From: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > PowerPC book3s 4K mostly has the same definition on both, except pXd_huge()
> > constantly returns 0 for hash MMUs.  As Michael Ellerman pointed out [1],
> > it is safe to check _PAGE_PTE on hash MMUs, as the bit will never be set so
> > it will keep returning false.
> > 
> > As a reference, __p[mu]d_mkhuge() will trigger a BUG_ON trying to create
> > such huge mappings for 4K hash MMUs.  Meanwhile, the major powerpc hugetlb
> > pgtable walker __find_linux_pte() already used pXd_leaf() to check hugetlb
> > mappings.
> > 
> > The goal should be that we will have one API pXd_leaf() to detect all kinds
> > of huge mappings.  AFAICT we need to use the pXd_leaf() impl (rather than
> > pXd_huge() ones) to make sure ie. THPs on hash MMU will also return true.
> 
> All kinds of huge mappings ?
> 
> pXd_leaf() will detect only leaf mappings (like pXd_huge() ). There are 
> also huge mappings through hugepd. On powerpc 8xx we have 8M huge pages 
> and 512k huge pages. A PGD entry covers 4M so pgd_leaf() won't report 
> those huge pages.

Ah yes, I should always mention this is in the context of leaf huge pages
only.  Are the examples you provided all fall into hugepd category?  If so
I can reword the commit message, as:

        As a reference, __p[mu]d_mkhuge() will trigger a BUG_ON trying to
        create such huge mappings for 4K hash MMUs.  Meanwhile, the major
        powerpc hugetlb pgtable walker __find_linux_pte() already used
        pXd_leaf() to check leaf hugetlb mappings.

        The goal should be that we will have one API pXd_leaf() to detect
        all kinds of huge mappings except hugepd.  AFAICT we need to use
        the pXd_leaf() impl (rather than pXd_huge() ones) to make sure
        ie. THPs on hash MMU will also return true.

Does this look good to you?

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu