Re: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc: mm: make _PAGE_NUMA take effect

[Liu ping fan <kernelfans@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V
<aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Liu Ping Fan <kernelfans@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> To enable the do_numa_page(), we should not fix _PAGE_NUMA in
>> hash_page(), so bail out for the case of pte_numa().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Liu Ping Fan <pingfank@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c
>> index fb176e9..9bf1195 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c
>> @@ -1033,7 +1033,7 @@ int hash_page(unsigned long ea, unsigned long access, unsigned long trap)
>>
>>       /* Get PTE and page size from page tables */
>>       ptep = find_linux_pte_or_hugepte(pgdir, ea, &hugeshift);
>> -     if (ptep == NULL || !pte_present(*ptep)) {
>> +     if (ptep == NULL || !pte_present(*ptep) || pte_numa(*ptep)) {
>>               DBG_LOW(" no PTE !\n");
>>               rc = 1;
>>               goto bail;
>
> why ? , All the hash routines do check for _PAGE_PRESENT via access
> variable.
>
Going through __hash_page_4K(4k on 4k HW), I do not find such check.
Am I wrong? Or I will send out a patch to fix that.

Thanks and regards,
Pingfan
> -aneesh
>