Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] mm/arch: Provide pud_pfn() fallback

Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-03T12:09:02Z

On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 07:35:45PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 07:53:20PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 06:43:56PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> >
> > > I actually tested this without hitting the issue (even though I didn't
> > > mention it in the cover letter..). I re-kicked the build test, it turns
> > > out my "make alldefconfig" on loongarch will generate a config with both
> > > HUGETLB=n && THP=n, while arch/loongarch/configs/loongson3_defconfig has
> > > THP=y (which I assume was the one above build used). I didn't further
> > > check how "make alldefconfig" generated the config; a bit surprising that
> > > it didn't fetch from there.
> >
> > I suspect it is weird compiler variations.. Maybe something is not
> > being inlined.
> >
> > > (and it also surprises me that this BUILD_BUG can trigger.. I used to try
> > > triggering it elsewhere but failed..)
> >
> > As the pud_leaf() == FALSE should result in the BUILD_BUG never being
> > called and the optimizer removing it.
>
> Good point, for some reason loongarch defined pud_leaf() without defining
> pud_pfn(), which does look strange.
>
> #define pud_leaf(pud) ((pud_val(pud) & _PAGE_HUGE) != 0)
>
> But I noticed at least MIPS also does it.. Logically I think one arch
> should define either none of both.

Wow, this is definately an arch issue. You can't define pud_leaf() and
not have a pud_pfn(). It makes no sense at all..

I'd say the BUILD_BUG has done it's job and found an issue, fix it by
not defining pud_leaf? I don't see any calls to pud_leaf in loongarch
at least

Jason