From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f52.google.com ([209.85.218.52]:35120 "EHLO mail-oi0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751573AbdBFRaY (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:30:24 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-f52.google.com with SMTP id j15so50771919oih.2 for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 09:30:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170206172731.GA17515@infradead.org> References: <148615748258.43180.1690152053774975329.stgit@djiang5-desk3.ch.intel.com> <20170206143648.GA461@infradead.org> <20170206172731.GA17515@infradead.org> From: Dan Williams Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 09:30:22 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: replace FAULT_FLAG_SIZE with parameter to huge_fault Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Matthew Wilcox , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , Dave Hansen , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM , Vlastimil Babka , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , linux-ext4 , "Kirill A. Shutemov" On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 08:24:48AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: >> > Also can be use this opportunity >> > to fold ->huge_fault into ->fault? >> >> Hmm, yes, just need a scheme to not attempt huge_faults on pte-only handlers. > > Do we need anything more than checking vma->vm_flags for VM_HUGETLB? s/VM_HUGETLB/VM_HUGEPAGE/ ...but yes as long as we specify that a VM_HUGEPAGE handler must minimally handle pud and pmd.