Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] powerpc/kvm: change the condition of identifying hugetlb vm

wenwei tao
2015-07-07T08:06:01Z

Hi Scott

I understand what you said.

I will use the function 'is_vm_hugetlb_page()' to hide the bit
combinations according to your comments in the next version of patch
set.

But for the situation like below, there isn't an obvious structure
'vma', using 'is_vm_hugetlb_page()' maybe costly or even not possible.
void flush_tlb_mm_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
unsigned long end, unsigned long vmflag)
{
...

if (end == TLB_FLUSH_ALL || tlb_flushall_shift == -1
|| vmflag & VM_HUGETLB) {
local_flush_tlb();
goto flush_all;
}
...
}

Thank you
Wenwei

2015-07-07 5:34 GMT+08:00 Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>:
> On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 16:47 +0800, wenwei tao wrote:
>> Hi Scott
>>
>> Thank you for your comments.
>>
>> Kernel already has that function: is_vm_hugetlb_page() , but the
>> original code didn't use it,
>> in order to keep the coding style of the original code, I didn't use it
>> either.
>>
>> For the sentence like: "vma->vm_flags & VM_HUGETLB" , hiding it behind
>> 'is_vm_hugetlb_page()' is ok,
>> but the sentence like: "vma->vm_flags &
>> (VM_LOCKED|VM_HUGETLB|VM_PFNMAP)" appears in the patch 2/6,
>> is it better to hide the bit combinations behind the
>> is_vm_hugetlb_page() ? In my patch I just replaced it with
>> "vma->vm_flags & (VM_LOCKED|VM_PFNMAP) || (vma->vm_flags &
>> (VM_HUGETLB|VM_MERGEABLE)) == VM_HUGETLB".
>
> If you're going to do non-obvious things with the flags, it should be done in
> one place rather than throughout the code. Why would you do the above and
> not "vma->vm_flags & (VM_LOCKED | VM_PFNMAP) || is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)"?
>
> -Scott
>